Old conservatism battles radical libertarianism

Recent decisions by Tony Abbott show he is out of touch with mainstream thinking and reveal a tension between old conservatism and an emergent libertarian ideology, writes Bruce Hawker.

Last week was a damaging one for Tony Abbott. Two events - his bungled attempt to retreat from our legal commitment to preventing certain racist utterances and his surprise announcement that imperial honours will be returned - could both damage him in the eyes of middle Australia over the longer term.

They also demonstrate an internal tension in his Government between regular old conservatism and a more radical emergent libertarian ideology.

His silly decision to reintroduce knighthoods is already being seen as absurd, cringing, and, interestingly, an affront to Australian institutions. He has confused a high comfort level with a celebrity monarchy for support for reintroducing archaic British honours to Australia. Abbott's belief that the public would accept the imposition of British honours over Australian institutions is, I believe, a misreading of Australian self-belief and identity. It was obviously something he wanted to do and demonstrates the depths of his conservatism. However, the rushed way these honours were announced without any consultation with his Cabinet suggests it was also done to divert attention from other potentially damaging issues like Medicare, education and job losses.

Whatever his motivations, it just says one thing to middle Australia - he is out of touch with mainstream thinking.

Despite this deeply conservative decision on knighthoods, Abbott's proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act have been justified by him and his Attorney-General, George Brandis, in libertarian language i.e. defending the right of people with ugly hearts to say almost anything they like about a minority group. The misjudgement in this approach was twofold:

Abbott's first mistake was in completely misreading the depth of feeling on racism in the many minority groups that make up today's Australia. (This failure to understand the concerns of an increasingly multicultural Australia is perhaps not surprising given Abbott's decision to reintroduce imperial honours reflects a distinctly mid-20th century view of Australia.)

The truth is that there is real sensitivity across all those communities about racism and this articulation of an Abbott/Brandis style liberalism will be remembered long after the Government slinks away from the extreme end of these proposed amendments. The electoral impact could be devastating for the Government - 20 per cent of Australian households speak a language other than English and nearly 50 per cent of the population are first or second generation Australians. Even when Anglo Celtic migrants are taken into account that's a lot of people, many of whom voted Liberal at the last election, who currently enjoy some level of protection under our law from race hate speech.

Abbott and Brandis's second mistake was in assuming that Australians generally think like Americans when it comes to libertarianism. This American tradition is the assertion of individual rights, including free speech, above all other rights and obligations. It enjoys significant Constitutional protection in the United States but finds its most extreme expression in the utterances of the Tea Party and its supporters.

I believe that Australians don't see the relationship between an individual's right to free speech and their social obligations as simplistically as that.

So, when Brandis, supported as he was by Abbott, asserted the right of all Australians to be bigots, it really struck a jarring note with a lot of people from all walks of life and political persuasion. That doesn't deny some deep-seated intolerance in this country - when it comes to race issues we have a pretty shameful history. However, despite all that, I think Australians still have a more balanced approach to social interactions.

In recent years we have seen increasing efforts by neo-liberal ideologues to create a dog-eat-dog society. However, there is still, I think, a strong view that society as a whole has to be held together with laws that not only permit us to do and say things that others may not support, but also that our laws should act to inhibit antisocial behaviour by individuals - including acts of racism.

As Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Tim Soutphommasane, noted in an excellent opinion piece in Saturday's edition of The Age, a survey by the University of Western Sydney found that between 66 and 74 per cent of Australians support or strongly support retaining the current law preventing statements intended to offend, insult or humiliate on the basis of race. This is the very section of the Racial Discrimination Act that Abbott wants to dilute to the point of unenforceability.

It's a fine line we walk in our democracy between permitting and preventing. This week Brandis stumbled across that line. His attempt to defend ignoble attitudes and beliefs by appealing to what he asserts is a higher libertarian principle - the right of individuals to say almost anything they want about other individuals or groups - enraged many and embarrassed many more. It's just not possible to defend base intentions by appealing to high principle. It sounds offensive and ridiculous because it is offensive and ridiculous.

While it's likely that Abbott and Brandis will be forced to retreat, at least partially, from these proposed attempts to dilute the race hate laws, it is a clear warning that this so-called libertarian approach to politics is the basis for many of the changes they wish to introduce. They want, for example, to withdraw government from actively supporting industries that create jobs in manufacturing. The coldness with which the Government saw off Holden and now Qantas, is testimony to this "let the devil take the hindmost" view of the world. They have also flagged changes to workplace laws protecting conditions and pay and will soon start dismantling Medicare by introducing co-payments for patients visiting their GP. And of course, Treasurer Joe Hockey is now pressing State governments to privatise services and sell off public assets in return for support from the Federal Government.

The central element in all these measures - whether it's about racial discrimination or assets sale and everything in between - is a radically reduced role for government. The collective good is subordinated to private, individual and corporate interests. Increasingly, that is the prism through which the Abbott Government's actions can be viewed and understood. In the coming months we will see less of Tony the conservative and much more of Abbott the libertarian. It was a face of his Party that he went to lengths to conceal during his time as opposition leader. Now the cat is out of the bag.

Bruce Hawker is founder and managing director of Campaigns and Communications, a company specialising in corporate and political campaigns. View his full profile here.

Comments (309)

Smoranean:

31 Mar 2014 9:41:07am

"he is out of touch with mainstream thinking."

I even pasted the entire 1,112 words 31 lines of tripe into a text editor to properly search without all the eye-strain, and still there were no successful finds for either the words 'gay' nor 'marriage' throughout. kudos to your brilliant self-control, sir.

Nell:

31 Mar 2014 11:02:12am

After unpacking your rather obtuse comment I can only conclude that it shows an extreme degree of paranoia about any kind of social change.

Suppose there are some people who can't live outside an hermetically sealed 1950's world? No wonder then the preoccupation with dress-ups and lairds and ladies.....Downer off to London like his father did before him? All the better for hobnobbing with Rio Tinto and their majesties.

Oh, BTW, Downer might just find himself invited to a few interesting country-house weddings there as part of the social duties of a fawning colonial in the Home country!

Smoranean:

Oaktree:

31 Mar 2014 4:12:42pm

The USA is not the only way out of the 1950's and I hope that we will never move closer than we are at present. Australia is a very lucky country when compared with UK and other countries around the world, it would be folly to go down the Tea Party path.

Marflo:

01 Apr 2014 2:10:52am

Hopefully Downer, like his fellow castout Nick Minchin, is a climate change skeptic. The world needs to know that, having shed the Labor government, we've also shed any hope of being a clever country. And our luck has run out, there's absolutely no money in the coffers so Abbott and Hockey are going to use their six week break to ride the buses and test out the racial discrimination act Bolt style. Great in our dumbness.

Spasticus Autisticus:

01 Apr 2014 1:29:00pm

The English countryside is blessed with a lot of rainy days. They can sit down for a nice cup of tea and discuss it with Lord Monckton. More reason for a sceptic. Yep, Abbott can take a ride in a bus to test out the racial discrimination act. This is a great policy achievement. Will he be sitting next to a Dame or a Knight and talk about how they stopped the boats?

EvilPundit:

The proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are more significant - and it's notable that the Labor/left side of politics is going all out to attack the government over this.

The University of Western Sydney survey cited as showing support for the existing Act doesn't actually say anything about the Government's amendments. It consists of very general questions asked of people between 2001 and 2010.

The real test of public feeling will be specific opinion polling on the legislative change itself, and so far as I know, there has been no public release of such results.

I'll take specific polling over statements by pundits who don't represent ordinary Australians.

FedUpExpress:

01 Apr 2014 2:00:33am

Great comment Mr Finch!

I would only add..

What some people don't seam to understand is there is no such thing as 'free speech', or 'free market'. It is not a right, or a privilege, to behave in an uncivilised manner in a civilised society in which one lives and receives the benefits of.

Freedom is as much earned today as the day prisons were invented. Grow up already Tory cave dwellers, and get on board with the 21st Century. Or get left behind, in the manner they so fear. And Lets be honest, deserve, if we were as mean and petty as they have been. And apparently continue to be.

Mike:

01 Apr 2014 1:15:09pm

I see no issue with the law as it stands. It prevents no citizen from saying anything, it merely prescribes the sanction which we as a community see as appropriate if such speech offends our collective community norms.

Todd:

31 Mar 2014 2:02:54pm

Yank, Individualism should not be seen as supporting bigots. It should be seen as supporting free expression of ideas. Just like freedom of religion should not be seen as supporting Satanism. The knight and dames does not bother me as it does not impact on the lives of people.

The RDA amendments, however, bothers me a lot because in the economy of ideas, I believe in the free market. They are plenty of ideas I do not like but I simply avoid them. I do not listen to MUA propaganda because I don?t want to, but I would never gag them.The Left have done it to tobacco and gambling. They tried to do it to the Internet. Next they want to do it to food companies - many on the Left support banning what they deem as "junk food" to be advertised on commercial media outlets. Scary stuff. Again, as a Leftie you would probably be horrified that I have a cola with my lunch. Oh, I know, all the Lefties pay for my health care (I don't know what happens to my well above average Medicare Levy, but I thought it would cover the one visit to the doctor in the last five years).

After the advertising ban, we will be hit with salt, sugar and fat taxes, which if my predictions are correct, will actually be applauded a few years after one side of the debate is shut down through force of Law through advertising bans. They have already had a lot of success with demonising soft drink. It is funny that the Left's heroes of yesteryear, alcohol prohibitionists, must be turning in their grave to see a society where alcohol use is growing (especially binge drinking), but the Health Intelligencia are running more anti-sugar ads than anti-alcohol ads. I can see it now ?yeah, don?t put too much lemonade in that shandy?I am on a health kick.? Haha. Seriously, though, it is just a natural progression for the prohibitionist to move on to greenfields products like those containing sugar, salt and fat.

The next Labor Government will introduce these taxes as they had planned to and the gap between rich and poor will get larger, faster. This is not just because the tax is regressive, but also because lower socio-economic groups are more likely to eat what the Left elite call "junk food". Burgers are junk food, but a big fat dollop of double cream in a five star restaurant isn't? Really? Look up the facts on those two foods per 100g. That will really help the poor with the cost of living. Not.

The above is a quick example of how restricting free speech can then adversely affect the lives of those who dare disagree with the Government. Yank, you loathe the current Government but continually support the rights of the Government to tell everyone exactly how to live. Lucky the Libs do not want to control people as much as the ALP.

Albo:

Craig of Bathurst:

31 Mar 2014 2:19:59pm

"Shorten...needs to not only speak well but present ideas that show another better approach to good governance to the LNP."

Shorten is not up to it. We all well remember the footage of him agreeing with anything Gillard said, even if he didn't know what it was she was talking about. Shorten is shallow. Albo will be opposition leader at next election.

The 'dames and knights' issue shows poor judgement by Abbott. But no-one will be hurt by it.

The 'support for bigots' amendments, as the yank facetiously and erroneously puts it, was an election pledge. If they didn't pursue it they would be called out as breaking a promise, regardless of its support.

Maybe some of you got used to governments telling you one thing then doing the opposite. Or worse still, promising you hope - for something they had no capacity to finance and no capability to deliver.

RayS:

01 Apr 2014 1:54:23pm

Norway has a 78% resources tax on oil and gas mining. So much for the claim that mining would not be viable if we keep the mining tax.

Then there's the carbon tax. It's ridiculous to state, as Abbott has, that everything will be great if the carbon tax is abolished, because the impact of the carbon tax is minimal and most people get compensation in the form of income tax reduction.

If Abbott was serious about the carbon tax hurting people, he would have accepted Labor's planned reduction to $5 a tonne from $26 a tonne. Then when the Senate changes, he could try for removing carbon pricing altogether.

Mind you, the legitimate reason for a carbon price is becoming firmer all the time.

Abbott's just using the carbon tax and lying about the savings that could be delivered. His political style resembles his boxing technique - come out swinging like a "whirlwinder" and hope the other guy is intimidated.

firthy:

I couldn't agree with you more Yank (yep I know that is odd but it is true). Neither of the issues Bruce bangs on about will be in many people's minds when they decide who to vote for in 2016.

One point about Bruce's article - it is all great to talk about community and such but when the government is out of cash it is somewhat difficult to fund all the things bruce mentions. We are going to have to decide what we continue to fund and what we don't because if we don't do it now (when we have that choice) it will be foistered onto us later on by others. Don't forget what happened to the PIIGS...

the yank:

We can obvious tax more and or cut funding to programs that do not hurt the most vulnerable.

The reply to more taxes I believe would be why should I pay for someone unable to take care of themselves, or words to that affect.

As to where we spend tax dollars could be an open issue but isn't. Republicans in the USA have supposedly had a change of heart regarding the concept of imprisonment. It seems they are coming around to decriminalising certain acts. They are not becoming more humanistic its just they don't want to spend so much money on prisons.

What do you think should we open up the prisons and spend the money on the unemployed maybe?

ROB1966:

Somewhat amusing that the man who was, in my humble opinion, one of those instrumental in Labor losing its way and becoming out of touch with its support base would pen such a piece about Abbott.

But then I guess Hawker knows all about "being out of touch", and certainly knows everything about "being irrelevant".

A nice touch of his too, to make out that private individuals submissions to a committee convened by the Goverment are now actual Liberal Party policy and being implemented by the Government. I guess "truth and facts" went out the window when he started writing this article

GrumpyOldMan:

31 Mar 2014 1:15:22pm

EP says ... "The titles business is a bit silly, but it's just a distraction."

It is not only a 'bit silly', it is hugely insulting to all Australians who believe that equality and fairness are fundamental values of our society (and that obviously excludes you EP). But yes, it is a distraction from far, far more important issues like proper funding of education and health services, tackling the menaces of climate change, and building a true 21st Century NBN.

Abbott has clearly got off the chain that kept this sort of stupid statement in check prior to the election, but now we are seeing the real Tony Abbott - a stupid, ignorant, backward looking ideologue. I can't wait for him to call a double dissolution election on axing the only effective market based mechanism we have for addressing climate change. Bring it on and vote this ignorant fool out!

Allan:

31 Mar 2014 6:26:42pm

Actually, "Fairness" is a fundamentally value in our society. But "Equality" shouldn't be. How can everyone receive equal share of the pie when each individual has different circumstances and outputs different amount of efforts to better his/her own life?

GrumpyOldMan:

31 Mar 2014 7:02:31pm

'Equality of opportunity' IS fundamental. 'Equality of reward' or an 'equal share of the pie' is not fundamental.

You should be well aware by now that that is what we so-called 'lefties' (aka human beings) mean by the term 'equality' - eg, equal access to education and health services. If you don't have that, you can't possibly have a 'fair' society.

ElijahThomas:

"it is hugely insulting to all Australians who believe that equality and fairness are fundamental values of our society"

I believe in both equality (though perhaps not in the same sense as you) and fairness, and I'm not insulted one bit.

If the return of the Knight and Dame grades to the Order of Australia is an attack on "equality" then so must be the existence of the Order of Australia itself. After all, this change only adds a rank to an organization that was already constituted primarily to recognize Australians of particular merit.

Personally, I think recognition on the basis of merit is what equality is all about. And recognizing merit in a way that honours this country's rich heritage, especially while we are still a constitutional monarchy, is a good way to do it. It's only a distraction if you allow yourself to be distracted, and the left seems absolutely desperate for fallacious distractions these days.

Benice:

31 Mar 2014 2:55:16pm

Wrong Evil pundit. From the UWS site itself - the survey asked "whether it should be unlawful to humiliate, insult, offend or intimidate someone according to their race." This is exactly what the government proposes to make LAWFUL and a large majority in this survey said they want it to be UNLAWFUL. So this does mean we have survey figures on the opposition to government amendments.

Also, it WAS a recent survey. Again, look at the university's website. Although the survey was carried out as part of an ongoing research project on attitudes to race which has been going for 12 years, this particular survey was a recent project specifically framed because of challenges being made to this section of the Act, to gauge community support for the laws. And they found, as have the government this week, that people want them retained.

Notagunzl:

31 Mar 2014 3:01:51pm

The titles business is more than a "bit silly", it shows total disrespect for the sovereignty and independence of Australia. It indicates that our prime minister believes that Australian honours are not enough for his selected Australian citizens, and places recipients of honours bestowed by an unelected figurehead (considered irrelevant even by many of her own British subjects) of a foreign nation in higher category than those awarded Australian honours. How much trust can one have in a leader with such a cringing subservient attitude on our behalf.

Desert Woman:

31 Mar 2014 9:47:49am

The age old divisions within the Coalition, and the ALP to a lesser extent, have been previously held together by the overarching goal of the national interest. But when you dish the national interest in favour of win at all cost, it is the divisions that shine through.

the yank:

Interesting comment. From what I have seen of Labor they have as many aspects of division as the LNP but then you might know more about their past then I do.

National interest is an interesting hook to hang a political philosophy upon. They do much the same thing in the USA and I suspect a lot of other countries.

When I first came to Australia I was shocked at how things operated here. I was especially surprised at the lack of pay differences between management and the employee. I was also surprised by the welfare system.

Over time I grew to appreciate the benefits of a stronger social safety net. Though I never had to use it I thought the Australian approach was fairer and contributed to a better level of social harmony. While there were still signs of poverty it never seemed as desperate as in the USA.

We now have a government which is traveling in new waters as far as the Australian public would be concerned. How far down the US path do Australian's want to go? Do we really need more Rineharts? If the USA is an example you can expect a great divergence between the rich and the poor and I think a worse crime rate.

barsnax:

31 Mar 2014 12:31:53pm

I don't know much about other countries welfare systems, but I'd like to think they don't use their welfare systems to bribe the comfortable middle class with welfare handouts and tax breaks to get their vote as our governments do.

the yank:

Well I haven't lived in the US for a long time so I am not sure but I never felt I received any direct assistance from the government.

I think in the US it was a matter of how well you could use the tax breaks on offer. When the top 1% pay less tax then the middle class one wonders who benefits from those that government.

All in all however I am much happier in Australia for the reasons I stated. I think this country at least was fairer then the US. Whether or not that concept will remain is in question. I guess we will have to wait until Hockey's budget to see who gets the golden handshake and who gets the shaft.

Todd:

31 Mar 2014 2:33:21pm

How much further down the Russian road do the ALP want to go? It does not really help to comapre us to other countries.

While we are at it, though. Let's go through some Aussie ex-pats who decided to leave. US - Greg Norman, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, pretty much everyone who has the money and opportunity. Russia - uuuuuuummmmmm. I'm out. Maybe you can let me know of some examples.

The fact is, if social disharmony is so bad in the US, why do people who could afford to live anywhere, live in the US? And why do none want to live in Russia? Therefore, that tells me that the US way (if we have to follow another country) is by far the best option.

Desert Woman:

31 Mar 2014 5:48:25pm

For the rich and powerful, the USA is the land of milk and honey. I saw some of that when I lived there. But for the rest it's tough and getting tougher. And above all, don't get sick or mentally ill - the best you can hope for is a nice piece of cardboard over a vent in the footpath, if they are not all taken.

Todd:

01 Apr 2014 1:12:24pm

And for the poor and powerless? Russia is the land of milk and honey for them? Bah. The fact is the poor and powerless do not have it good anywhere. The advantage with the US and other Western capitalist economies is that there is at least a chance of improving one's lot in life. In the socialist utopia of Eastern Europe there is little chance (unless they migrate to the UK like they are doing in droves in order to get out from under the crippling fist of socialism.

Gordon:

FedUpExpress:

01 Apr 2014 2:27:39am

Yes Todd,

The I'm in government and get paid but we shouldn't have a government and I shouldn't get paid paradox no doubt. Too hard lets just give the baddie a name. 'Red' Tape. And all disappear into intellectual nothingness.

Craig of Bathurst:

"We now have a government which is traveling in new waters as far as the Australian public would be concerned."

More wild generalisations from the yank.

"Do we really need more Rineharts? "

Um, well, yes - if you want more job creation (or is this just another one of your rhetorical (non) questions?).

The $10 billion Roy Hill project will generate thousands of new (highly paid) jobs and send huge tax receipts to state and federal coffers - and has secured international investors to do it. So to bring your message to a logical conclusion, more Gina's means more jobs for your 'poor' and a lesser 'crime rate'.

With flacid arguments, yank, you're 'traveling in new waters' of insignificance.

dean:

If we magically created a moment in time where everyone was provided with the same opportunities, the same finances etc there would quite quickly be a re-setting of status.

Those who have entrepreneurial traits and high work ethics would quite quickly become "better off" whilst others would quickly fall back into the poor set.

If a country has democracy and policy settings which allow those who work hard and take risks with to be rewarded , the entire country benefits.

Australia has been very lucky in the past where those who have genuinely needed a help up have been provided with it. Unfortunately there is now an expectation of entitlement for many and a misunderstanding of what productivity is required to be globally competitive. Union protected industries such as Qantas now have legacy issues which will require radical changes or they will disappear.

seanone:

31 Mar 2014 3:23:17pm

Thanks yank the electorate here needs reminding frequently that this Nation is far better than America in the way it as traditionally handled all in its society. Inequality was declining for most of our history through sensible Government. Our egalitarianism recognised that we owed all in our society a fair go. This was acted on by taxing the wealthy and redistributing that to the rest through Social Safety nets, aged pensions, free schooling, minimum living wages etc. Then in the seventies our Politicians fell for the latest fad from the Americans namely as Reagan so succinctly put it "Government is the problem" and started on the path of shrinking Government, selling our assets at dirt cheap prices and giving the wealthy massive tax cuts, as a result inequality is again rising rapidly and our egalitarian nature is under severe challenge as each fights for their lives in a greedy cesspool of rich entitlement versus means tested support for the less well off.

Desert Woman:

31 Mar 2014 4:09:31pm

I don't know how much of our history you have been able to catch up with Yank but The Australian Legend, 1958 (Russell Ward) is worth a read. Given an anti-authoritarianism born of the convict days and the necessity of cooperation to survive in the bush, our weddedness to equality and looking after each other was pretty inevitable. How much of it has been lost to the predations of economic rationalism and individualism we will see in the next few years.

JohnC:

31 Mar 2014 2:24:48pm

@Desert Woman:The win at all costs mentality has morphed into win at any cost. The national interest now comes a poor second to the political games that are being played out in Canberra, best illustrated by the biased behaviour of the Speaker the dis-honourable Bronwyn Bishop. Unfortunately it looks like things will only get worse under Abbott's watch. Like or loathe Julia Gillard at least the parliament functioned effectively measured in legislation that passed through the House under her prime ministership.

MuZZ:

well well, the abusive kangaroo is apparently alive and still kicking.

The thing is, the majority of people, by a long shot, agree and support our honorable PM. Please refer to recent election results to verify that obvious truth.

Oh it is so pleasant to be able to refer to a current PM as honorable, something not possible for the previous six years.

Back to your one eyed brilliance, which only exists in your own estimation and this platform which exists only to allow bigots such as yourself the ability to drag the debate into the gutters that only the well heeled lefties know so well.

whogoesthere:

Abbott won mainly because Labor were so utterly terrible. That is the 'obvious truth'. Abbott has never, ever been widely popular like Howard was at times. It's a long time till the election, so who knows what will happen. But Abbott fans shouldn't pretend he's got wide spread support, he hasn't.

He should have a little shrine to Rudd and Gillard in his study. Without them, I doubt he ever would have been PM.

PS. Dragging debates into the gutter is not only the province of the left. Open both eyes !.

barsnax:

31 Mar 2014 1:01:47pm

I've often thought the two party system which gives us the illusion of democracy is very flawed.

We voted out Abbott's mob (Hockey, Bishop {both of them}, Pyne, and the rest of the incompetents) in 2007 and yet we voted them back in 2012 because Labor were a shambles and now we foolishly expect some sort of change.

While ever these people are allowed to stay in government nothing will ever change.

No new ideas... only revenge, payback and helping the people that put them back into government.

whogoesthere:

31 Mar 2014 4:35:58pm

I agree. I have in the past criticised people who don't vote. I believe as a citizen you should take part in the democratic process. But I didn't vote last time, I can't stand either of them at the moment. Not voting through apathy, and not voting as a protest are different. Pity there's no way to quantify it, maybe if we could the pollies would get the message.

fred:

31 Mar 2014 2:42:42pm

Agree whogoesthere. the fact Abbott won in a landslide is the ultimate indictment on the parlous state of Labor. THe ALP are so bereft of talent, intelligence, and ambition to front a statesman/woman to compete against Abbott.

The ALP could not muster anyone with half a clue during 6 years in govt to bring Abbott down. As they drift into oblivion, the ALP can only hold a mirror up to the likes of gillard, rudd, swan et al and shakes their heads in wonder.

burke:

Gordon:

31 Mar 2014 10:19:44pm

Agreed. The generally negative reaction to both the brandis 18c rewrite and the knights/dames malarky might hopefully teach them that they are not hereto remake Australia in their image but to be less hopeless than the last lot.

PW:

31 Mar 2014 11:34:14am

"The thing is, the majority of people, by a long shot, agree and support our honorable PM. Please refer to recent election results to verify that obvious truth."

Majority huh? The total of votes for the Liberal, National, Liberal National (Qld) and Country Liberal (NT) parties at the 2013 election was 46.35%. The remainder voted for someone else. 46.35% turned out to be more than enough to win the election, but is not a majority.

Jangle:

31 Mar 2014 12:46:39pm

Re overwhelming majorities: something I heard after the last Federal election, and can't remember where unfortunately (but probably on the ABC, possible Antony Green), was that the coalition won two party preferred by a total of 30,000 votes. It was how they fell that gave them the number of seats. Can't see how 30,000 votes out of millions is an 'overwhelming majority' personally - knife edge more like it

Demosthenes:

31 Mar 2014 1:17:50pm

I am not sure what dictionary you use, but favouring a political view (even were this true) is not being a bigot. If this is, however, the case, you seem to have admitted that you are a bigot, given your apparent boundless support fro the current government.

As to honourable - I am not sure what the nonsense re Gonski funding was all about, but it was not honourable to say that 'we are on a unity ticket' and then ' actually, we are going to use a completely different model, because we have just realised what our promise will cost'.

What is honourable about the misleading economic information, about the vastly debt and mismanagement by the incumbent government being portrayed as some failure from Labor?

Tony may give himself a Knighthood, but I don't think he is gifted in honour.

v:

31 Mar 2014 1:45:20pm

MuZZ,

"The thing is, the majority of people, by a long shot, agree and support our honorable PM."

Sorry, but this is just so wrong it is ridiculous.

Abbott's personal approval rating has never been higher than 50% and his party has never secured anywhere near 50% of the votes cast in a federal election. On just about every issue-poll taken since the election, the VAST majority of Australians have disagreed with his preferred position. It doesn't matter whether you are talking climate change, carbon pricing, asylum seekers, the legalisation of racial vilification, the re-instatement of feudal honours, the appointment of the most partisan Speaker in the history of Parliament, the suitability of Arthur Sinodinos for Cabinet, legal protections for corrupt "financial advisors", the establishment of Star Chambers into trade unions and the highly successful home insulation programme......you name it, we disagree with him.

Abbott got in as a negative candidate, riding on a wave of propaganda-induced voter hysteria. Very few people actually wanted him as Prime Minister - they just wanted an end to Rupert's Circus. But all that they achieved was to put the assistant ringleader in charge of the country. It is quite clear that the majority of us want the NBN in its original form, the Gonski reforms in their original form, the NDIS in its original form, and we DON'T want witch-hunts, we DON'T want feudal honours and we DON'T want Greek style austerity wrecking our economy.

Todd:

31 Mar 2014 2:17:06pm

Careful, Muzz. 18C still stands and by refering to the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Government, the Labor luvvie on the receiving end of your comment just may well be humiliated...or at least he should be. And how do you no that he is white and therefore stands outside the ambit of s18C?

The race of the person to whom you are speaking (or typing) is of vital importance, apparently. It's weird, I used to think treating people differently on the basis of their race was the very definition of racism. I guess I was wrong. I hope this comment does not cause offence under the meaning of s18C to those who are other than white.

Special note should be given to the offensive comments last week disparaging my Anglo Saxon heritage. But hey, Anglo heritage is fair game according to the Lefties. Please explain why?

There were thousands of comments making fun of British culture. If someone were to make a joke about any other culture, they would be labelled a bigot by the Left. I would remind those of the Left that hatred of people with British ancestry makes one no less a bigot than hatred of people with any other ancestry. But they know that. It is just more blatant hypocrisy from the Left.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 5:12:58pm

Exactly, and I have a question for everyone. Remember Australia Day 2012, when Gillard's media flak deliberately told a lie to a group of protesters that Tony Abbott said something he hadn't said, in order to upset that group? And then they charged the restaurant where Gillard was, and her security detail had to scramble to get her out of there. She even lost one of her shoes in that mad rush, and it ended up on ebay.To my knowledge, nobody was ever charged over that incident, despite there being video images captured and damage to property.Why was that mob never charged?

Chris L:

So MuZZ, you describe the current PM as honorable (sic) on the basis of winning an election, yet somehow describe the previous ones as being the opposite despite their own election wins.

People can suggest it's time folks just accepted the results of the election. I agree. I just wish someone had suggested that to Mr Abbott before he went on his three year temper tantrum. Funny how he finds his own medicine so disagreeable.

Gary:

31 Mar 2014 6:42:07pm

Gillard may have been vilified by the extreme right but the list of achievements were worthy of recognition.At least she was not caught out ripping of entitlements as Abbott was and was not involving Australian in Wars to profit their own agenda under false pretences

v:

01 Apr 2014 9:26:25am

gary,

"Gillard may have been vilified by the extreme right but the list of achievements were worthy of recognition."

You are quite right. Despite being lumbered by us with a hung parliament, Gillard managed to negotiate a record number of bills through the House, and many of these were directed toward important reforms that, unless Abbott stuffs them up, will prepare Australia for the next thirty years of change.

Despite the vitriol heaped upon her from New York, Gillard will go down as our most visionary and successful reforming Prime Minister.

Todd:

01 Apr 2014 12:58:18pm

If she had a hostile opposition Senate, then she could not have got so much legislation through. And here all you Lefties say how obstructionist Abbott was, but at the same time, bang on about how many new (bad) laws were passed. Like the extra $100 per week for low income smokers and the abolition of the Single Parenting Payment when kids are all grown up (8yo).

I guess one person's achievements are another persons financial funeral.

Whatever you think of Labor's attack of low and middle income earners, I can tell you that Abbott will notget much through until after July 1 this year, and that is only if he gets a majority in the Senate. It doesn't look like he will, unfortunately. So, it's no Governing until 216 by order of Labor/Greens. They won't even pass legislation that Abbott talked about, ad nauseum, PRIOR to the election. But nobody hates like the Left, we all know that.

The Libs, on the other hand, were more gracious and allowed legislation that Labor did not take to any elections as they respect the right of the Government to govern. That even included the assault of low middle income earners that were the above two pieces of legislation.

But unfortunately the Labor/Green strategy works on the simpler voters. Labor will continue to enjoy the benefits of rising unemployment and general economic malaise during the next two years of which I refer to as Australia's own 3 year Government Shutdown.

There is no point having a decent Governnment if the likes of the Greens (through LAbor) have veto power of anything they try to do. It is pretty much like the UN, a big waste of money that can never really get anything done due to giving veto power to the likes of Russia and China.

I just hope that in 2016, we can get governing again. I hope for the sake of smokers, parents, internet users, workers, employers and people who have prtivate health cover that it is not Labor. I reckon doing nothing is still marginally better than kicking the most vulnerable when they are down. But after cutting the Single Parenting Payment, I see Labor supporting a 20% increase for poor downtrodden ferry drivers who already have to eke out an existence on $220k for four days a week. If only Single Parents could have worked harder at having family or friends in the MUA, they would not need welfare.

Personally, I would bring back sense to the waterfornt and use the billions in extra revenue to help out the vulnerable. The MUA has to be stopped at some stage. 20% year on year for uneducated, unskilled people who would struggle to write their own names is not sustainable and EVERYBODY who consumes any imported goods pay for these crooks. And people wonder why cost of living is literally killing the poor in this country.

MuZZ:

01 Apr 2014 12:22:32pm

List of achievments - lets see....ummmm

As ED Minister, oversaw BRW....report by international academics released yesterday - 'a case study of failure', a huge waste of money, did not acheive its objective of job creation, ignored early warnings and failed to act to rectify obvious problems. NO TICK THERE Gary

Elevation to PM, insider accounts of acting behind KRudds back to undermine his position, no attempt to advise prior to coup. NO TICK THERE GAry

2010 Election campaign, No carbon tax under Govt I lead.....enough said eh Gary?

ALP Gillard Govt....signed up with fellow socialist/watermelons...huge success Gary?Support of Thompson,Williamson,Slipper....oh dear Gary, list is getting very thin indeed.Concocted cosmogony charade and handbag hit squad cheerleaders - I suppose that was some sort of achievement in your eyes Gary.

Now what entitlements have been ripped so far, compared to putting all those struggling single mums on the dole?

As for V - Access economics on 'your ABC' - John Faine this morning, the country is in critical trouble, budget wise,due to the land mines enshrined in legislation by the prev. ALP govt., even John did not disagree with him. No Austerity required, but gee they have some big problems to deal with to' avoid this country having a perpetual deficit', all due to the policy manifestations of the previous govt in its dying days. Big cheer for your mob V !

Todd:

01 Apr 2014 12:35:57pm

Extrem right? Really? Why do you think Comrade Shorten had her replaced with Rudd? Because the vast majority did not like her. If the majority are deemed to be extreme, then your definition of extreme is misplaced. The majority cannot be extreme by definition.

jennbrad:

JohnM:

31 Mar 2014 9:57:15am

Oh dear, another rambling leftist.

New Zealand has knighthoods and no-one seems to complain. And Hawker seems to think that every Australia is a raging racist just waiting to be let off the leash. Somehow Hawker has forgotten that we muddled along fine before 18C came along and he's forgotten that racism is squashed by education rather than legislation.

Peter Stanton:

31 Mar 2014 10:48:57am

Your belief that we "we muddled along fine before 18C" is nonsense. You obviously do not mix with indigenous, recently immigrated or non christian people. If you did you would know that the impact racist and bigoted behavior is routinely suffered by such people. Section 18C has restricted the most blatant public expressions of bigotry but more subtle bigotted behavior is still common.

Drew:

v:

01 Apr 2014 10:51:26am

Pert,

Well, my ancestors hail from Ireland and at least one was transported to Australia as a political prisoner. So I suppose that I qualify. After all, very few peoples have suffered more at the hands of British colonial exploitation than the Irish. Certainly none have suffered for longer.

But the concept of "knights" and "dames" should be just as offensive to the English as to anyone. The whole ridiculous charade was introduced to England by an invader known variously as "William the Conquerer" and "Willam the Bastard", whose militaristic feudalism wreaked havoc across the land, displaced and dispossessed entire regional populations and installed foreign landlords on their lands.

In reinstating the feudal award system introduced into the Anglophone world by a vicious, mass-murdering usurper, Mr Abbott is paying tribute to his philosophical and political roots. How long before we see the reintroduction of the pillary, wife-ducking machines and trans......oh, hang on, we already transport our unwanted responsibilities to Nauru and Manus, don't we.

Where's Tony:

31 Mar 2014 12:15:12pm

It may have missed your attention JM but New Zealand can do what they like. NZ is not Australia, even if we claim so many of their better known folks and horses as such.What we have here in Aus., is akin to the Rocky Horror Show, "Doing the Time Warp Again."I'm not a leftist, my friend, just another Aussie who thinks "ADVANCE" Australia fair should mean something more than, lies, rorts, broken promises and 3 word slogans.I was disgusted by the internal politics of Labor, I thought we had seen the low point in parliamentary behaviour during Tone's opposition. My god was I wrong. Nothing in my long life of observing politics can compare to the shambles we now have.Have a wonderful day, John, they may soon become a rarity.

Dame Paul Pott:

31 Mar 2014 5:56:50pm

Strange logic, like most of your posts. What is particularly left wing about disliking the two main political parties, wanting Australia to advance and having a poor opinion of Tony Abbott? Can't I be a liberal voter and not like what I see in Mr Abbott?

Zing:

31 Mar 2014 7:05:59pm

My impression is that the more extreme a leftie is, the more likely they are to view themselves as being a moderate centrist.

I believe this stems from an unwillingness to accept the existence of their own bias. They delude themselves into thinking that because they're lefties, they're right. Because they're right, they can't be biased. Since they can't be biased, it must mean they're centrists.

Where's Tony:

31 Mar 2014 11:58:59pm

Hi again Zing. So now I'm an extreme leftist who can't accept the existence of my own bias I'm also deluded into thinking I'm a centrist.This would have to be the most convoluted load of psycho babble I have ever heard, my god, why don't you just come to terms with the fact that you are the one with problems.Not all posters here are glued on muppets.Not all of us are anti-Lib just because we don't genuflect to this PM.Some of us are genuine swinging voters who can be swayed by good politics and the enacting of them. We can also be swayed by broken promises, outright lies, secrecy and meaningless hyperbole. In short we think for ourselves before robotically ticking the box that either of the majors tell us to.We are free spirits, my friend, try it sometime you may find it refreshing.

Doodlehag:

31 Mar 2014 6:47:49pm

It is possible to support policy from either the right and left.Have you ever heard of the sensible centre, swinging voters?Leave the patronizing tone for the schoolyard, it does nothing to further your cause.

Where's Tony:

31 Mar 2014 7:57:25pm

Be as sceptical as you want Zing. I have watched the antics of your man Abbott for years and nothing he has ever done endears him to me. I think he has brought the Liberal party and the Parliament to a new low but now has installed a demonstrably biased speaker in an effort to avoid the same treatment he dished out while LOTO.How this equates to me "hating" the liberal party escapes me.Only time will tell what damage is inflicted upon the nation. Only time will tell who in the country will get the tough and who the love but on current evidence I suspect we know the answer to that. You, by your own post, show a prejudice towards the right, I have no such prejudice. What I do have is a desire to see politicians of all persuasions, say what they mean and do what they say when in government. Na?ve of me, probably but I don't accept lies, backflips or fingers in my pocket from any one, least of all those in positions of trust and responsibility. Strange animals, we free spirits, something the rusted on to major parties find unacceptable. But, my friend, there are still enough of us out there to make a difference.

Luke:

v:

31 Mar 2014 2:08:16pm

JohnM,

"Somehow Hawker has forgotten that we muddled along fine before 18C came along"

You have a very short and fanciful memory.

The current anti-discrimination legislation arose from the recommendations of a Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, and the provisions of 18C were the result of some of the principal recommendations of that inquiry.

No, we didn't "muddle along fine" before racist bullying was outlawed by 18C. People died sometimes quite horrible deaths as a result of the entrenched racism of the police and judiciary and something had to be done.

And, as for "racism is squashed by education", so what? You are talking about the next generation of adults - what about the current one? When I was at school we were told that the Aboriginal people of Australia were, to a man, on the brink of extinction until Captain Cook arrived, just in the nick of time, and taught them to fish. I remember being quite impressed with their patience. Imagine sitting around starving for 40,000 years, waiting for instructions from a white man.....and I am not that old, so there are plenty of adults around who were brought up on similar lies.

In an ideal world, 18C would not be necessary. But we have people like Andrew Bolt and Rupert Murdoch in ours. We need laws to protect us from them and their fellow travellers.

Todd:

31 Mar 2014 2:36:01pm

Absolutely, John.

I have always thought that those who are highly suspicious oif negative traits in others (like that we all racist) stems from a recognition that those people themselves are like that and therefore it is to be expected that they think that of everyone else. That is, everyone thinks they are normal.

GD:

31 Mar 2014 3:03:44pm

Australians won't be complaining about knighthoods either once Will and Kate bring out little Georgy Porgy to meet us all later in the year. No doubt the masses thronging to have a look at their future king will all hate the idea of royalty.Labor\Green "republicans" will be lining up to be introduced to them by the PM in the hope their picture ends up in one of the women's magazines. Bill Shorten, his wife and mother in law [who just happened to be the first Dame]will be the first in line I'd imagine.Once again they underestimate Abbott and once again they'll lose in the end.

Dame Paul Pott:

31 Mar 2014 6:03:39pm

When I was child in Norther Ireland, I was severely told off by my mother around about 1950 when some friends and I went to a welcome for some British royalty who was visiting our town. My mother nearly had apoplexy of the idea what my grandfather would do if he found out. You see, our family were Irish Republicans. So I certainly will not want to be shaking the hand of someone who has contributed sweet nothing to human advancement.Do you know anyone that wants to meet these visitors, or this is just a trolling exercise?

Todd:

01 Apr 2014 1:04:45pm

Irish republican? They have done sooooo much to advance humanity. Oh wait. Well, I suppose it depends if you think terrorism advances humanity. I tend to think not. Bombs in shopping centres. The height of cowardice. I don't think you find Wills and Kate killing children at Christmas, but we are all entitled to our opinion. The British helped create the best country in the World (Australia) so I believe they have done quite a bit to advance humanity. I look at how colonies from the other powers turned out (French in Africa, Dutch in Indonesia) and I am thankful were were founded by the Brits. Rule Britannia.

Malcolm:

31 Mar 2014 9:57:50pm

I can guarantee that if it had been Bruce Hawker or Mungo MacCullum who had fallen foul of Section 18C neither Abbott, Brandis or the IPA would have batted an eyelid. But as it was their paid cheerleader Bolt they were duty bound to.

v:

01 Apr 2014 12:42:10pm

Malcolm,

Ah yes, but Bruce and Mungo are responsible adults. If you are a responsible adult, you cannot fall foul of 18C. Bolt is not a responsible adult and his childish behaviour put him in conflict with the law.

But you are right concerning the double standards of Tories. Where were Abbott and Brandis when Howard removed our right to free speech and even free thought with his drachonian "anti-terrorism" legislation? Where were they when our right to freedom of association was removed by Howard's IR "reforms", and where are they now when the rights of Queenslanders to associate freely with colleagues, friends and family are being withdrawn by Il Duce Newman?

Freedom of speech in Tory parlance means "freedom to say what we agree with". Brandis and Abbott are willing to change the law to suit Andrew Bolt because they agree with his racist rants. Past experience shows that, if they disagreed with Bolt, they would do everything in their power to shut him up.

Jungle Boy:

GraemeF:

31 Mar 2014 2:04:49pm

You are right regarding 18C. The loopholes provided in 18D are big enough to drive a truck through them. They do not stifle debate.

Bolt got pinged because, as usual, he didn't bother to get any facts right and as such he falsely maligned a group of people to whip up a frenzy in his 'right' minded followers. They still believe his false claims that these people used their claims of aboriginality for personal financial gain despite his statements not being true.

?It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.?

Lee:

Peter the Lawyer:

31 Mar 2014 5:51:20pm

I suspect that the real reason for any such poll result is because most people probably took the question as being whether they condoned racist speech. That is a different question from whether racist speech should be unlawful. Unfortunately, our education system has been so bad for so long that is has produced too many people who can't understand that things can be wrong without being unlawful.

Chris L:

31 Mar 2014 10:00:40am

We have government because private enterprise isn't there to look after the citizenry, it's there to make a profit.

There is no indication that public run organisations are any less efficient than private, especially given the extra oversight and expectations. I don't get this push, by both major parties, for privatisation, it just sounds like less protection for the average citizen.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 10:02:26am

"A radically reduced role for government", he says, as if that's a bad thing. The author says that introducing knights and dames underestimates our self-belief - well if we have such self-belief sir, why do we need more and more annoying bureaucrats and regulations? I've been waiting decades for someone to have some libertarian principles, who had the guts to say "no" to those corporate rent-seekers.Mr Hawker seems to have a rather low opinion of this country as whole. I would say that it's Mr Hawker who is out of touch with what people think - proof of that is his idea that Mr Rudd was a viable candidate for PM in 2013.And as for these "racial protections", you make it sound as if their is a big oil geyser of race hate simmering just under the surface of our society, and that the plebs must be kept in line by section 18C. I, and I assume plenty of others, maybe a majority, had never even heard of this 18C until that high profile Bolt case. So it never governed the behaviour of people who've never heard of it, so what use was it other than an opportunity to stifle someone else's views?I think we're seeing a conservative renaissance, and it will last as long as peoples' memories of the gross waste and big govrnment ways of Gillard and Rudd are in voters' memories.PS - negative gearing is sound policy.

R.Dorkins:

31 Mar 2014 10:49:53am

"I assume plenty of others, maybe a majority, had never even heard of this 18C until that high profile Bolt case"

You're kidding?

A "majority" didn't know that it wasn't legitimate to vilify others based on ethnicity, race or religion?Never signed a workplace policy specific to such behaviour?Never known anyone who was subject to discrimination?Perhaps you believe a majority aren't aware of how gravely breaches of this law are taken by most if not all employers?Next time you exercise your right to free speech, use your brain first.

whogoesthere:

31 Mar 2014 11:45:20am

I think AE is correct. The statement is 'not many people knew about 18C before the Bolt case'.

Most people know about workplace rules, I would say most knew that 'hate speech' was against the law. But the specific cluases in 18C such as 'offend' and 'insult', I'd agree most people didn't know about.

The question "Will racial abuse increase if the law is repealed" is valid. I doubt it, but we'll have to wait and see.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 12:32:42pm

Exactly, my point was just that I'd never heard of it in the media or in conversation with colleagues and friends. I'm sure most people have a general awareness that discrimination is against the rules, but the "offend and insult" provisions weren't so widely known.

Lee:

R.Dorkins:

31 Mar 2014 1:50:39pm

Yes, but he didn't refer to particular words or clauses in a subsection did he? He made a broad generalisation about the lack of common knowledge of the majority of people with regards to an entire section of the act.

Whether or not most people (I couldn't) would have been able to name a particular section prior to the Bolt debacle is irrelevant given most would know of the existence of a Racial Discrimination Act and have at least some understanding of the law.

Reagan Country:

31 Mar 2014 3:03:21pm

I wouldn't want to work at a place where racial vilification was present and I don't know anyone who does, or anyone who would either sit by idly while racists ran amok, or remained at that workplace if management took no action. I think the vast majority of Australians self regulate with such things, so regardless of whether people were aware of 18c or not before the Bolt case, I think community standards have delivered the primary objective. No doubt there will a few extreme examples of exception but I've never experienced anything like them. PS: my understanding is that racial vilification that is not a comment on a matter of public interest would be prohibited under the proposed amendments e.g. the abuse hurled at the French girl on the bus, or racial abuse directed to indigenous footballers, or racial abuse at the work place.

rod:

31 Mar 2014 10:55:15am

"negative gearing is sound policy"

Of course, if you're one of the elite few who can profit from it. "Conservative Renaissance", with the implication that conservatism is forward looking, is an oxymoron. Conservatism is cowardice, pure and simple: the snivvelling capitulation before the World's problems with the "I'm alright Jack" slogans like "the poor will always be with us", "the poor don't want to be educated", "global warming is a leftist construct" - all slogans that enable the comfortable to carry on as they are and ignore all else. It is, quite simply, a lack of courage and foresight to dare to imagine that World could be a better place.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 12:25:47pm

Relying on yourself and taking responsibility for yourself, be it reward or failure, which is the essence of conservatism, takes courage. I would say that expecting government to be responsible for you, to manage every bit of risk out of your life, is cowardly.

taxedorf:

31 Mar 2014 3:58:10pm

being responsible to just oneself isnt any better than being petty , self centred and selfish . we live in communities which are complex and require interdependence supported by rules. those few who think they can live alone freed from rules and empathy can attempt to do so but will find it hard to produce shelter energy water and food. we have governments to provide aspects that support our community ( nation) and keep a level playing field. only the feeble would think they have no role in the community and that governments make all the decisions. at the end of the day we follow rules and make decisions how to work within the rules not to thwart them at every attempt.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 5:50:25pm

Shelter, water and food is provided to you by the guvvament is it? I bought my house of the previous owner, I buy water and electricity from the provider and pay for what I use (same as everybody) and buy food from the privately owned shop.I contribute by paying tax, same as some others do. If you want people like Nicola Roxon and Stephen Conroy deciding what you're allowed to say, read, put in your body etc. then that's your problem, there's plenty of us who feel that we, and not politicians, know what's best for us and our families. I don't look at people like Penny Wong, or Tony Abbott, and wish that they had more control over me because they are just so brilliant, and so morally superior, because they are politicians. Do you think that politicians are born with some special gene that makes them smarter than all of us or something?

taxedoff:

31 Mar 2014 8:32:48pm

once again I do suggest you read more than ramble, no one is advocating govts interfering however if you do care to look at the current situation in aust we are surrounded with 1000's of laws etc etc and most protect the general public from the criminal minded . if you like we can do away with the road rules as they infringe on our choice where and how to drive etc etc ,, 18c in effect safe guards the morons from public disclosure so its a god send for the rest of us not to have to listen to their carping whinging degrading of others who look or have differing cultural mores. oh dear bank robbery is a govt interference with my life , oh dear I want to set fire to the buildings . oh dear I like to litter ... oh dear we don't need building inspectors to ensure a building is structurally safe etc etc yes its terrible all that interference in our lives stops us from our liberty to act like animals

AE:

01 Apr 2014 8:56:52am

Every time someone says that there is too much government, someone like yourself sets up this strawman argument that we are asking for no regulation at all, which is not the case, I never said it was. And if you don't wnat to listen to someone's opinion, switch off.

Zing:

31 Mar 2014 1:47:12pm

Conservatism is a natural tempering of society's desire for change. A realisation that not all change is for the better, and not all change is worth the risk of trying.

Progressives will make a number of changes whenever they're in government. When conservatives inevitably regain government, they'll keep the changes that work and reverse the rest. And so the cycle continues.

Even progressives will become conservative after a time. Every change they make to society must be guarded, least it be reversed by their opponents. Eventually when all their desired changes are made, the progressive's efforts will be completely focused on keeping things the way they are. At that point, they will become a conservative. Much like the conservatives of today would be seen as progressives by the conservatives of last century.

GraemeF:

31 Mar 2014 2:50:23pm

Negative gearing promotes speculation in second hand goods. That is not very productive. It skews the market in favour of the already haves against the have nots. It is unsound ethically and economically.

R.Dorkins:

Mitor the Bold:

31 Mar 2014 10:57:42am

Yes, God save the Queen, our head of state. That's our modern Australia - in thrall to Prince William and his aspirational wife from the English Home Counties, one day to be our Queen, or whatever. That makes me proud to be an Australian, doesn't it you? I love it when our elected PM subjugates himself to a foreign monarch - it's so dignified. So Australian.

Jungle Boy:

31 Mar 2014 12:09:16pm

So good of you to express your xenophobia in a foreign tongue (English).

My pride in Australia is not so shallow that it's constrained by its symbols (whether they happen to be from ancient tradition, appointees by Canberra politicians, or elected by my fellow citizens) or the harmless acts of politicians (as undignified as they may be).

Zing:

31 Mar 2014 2:01:42pm

And what would you prefer? American style royalty like the Obama Dynasty?

I suppose Obama has more dignity, since he only has to subjugate himself when he looks in a mirror. But that's hardly worth the cost of a referendum. And since when has the PM's dignity mattered to more than half the voting population at a given time?

Zing:

Mitor the Bold:

31 Mar 2014 6:33:53pm

"And what would you prefer? American style royalty like the Obama Dynasty?"

That's right, the only sensible system of governance is to be subservient to another nation's inherited monarch. I can't imagine why all proud nations don't install this obviously superior system of governance. God forbid we should sink as low as America, which has the arrogance to believe that its head of state should be someone Americans actually voted for.

Mitor the Bold:

"I don't know what's more funny, the fact that you think that the Queen of Australia is a "foreign" monarch..."

As far as I'm aware the Queen is an English citizen, resident and domicile. I am also reliably informed that England is a foreign country. Maybe you have some inside knowledge that's escaped me.

Americans vote for one of two parties, just like here. The parties elect their leader just prior to an election, so the president is one step removed - a bit like our Parliamentary elections.

However, the key difference is that we vote for the government that will serve the queen whereas Americans vote for the government that will serve the people. They're more grown-up than our 'grown-ups' who still stamp their feet until their little faces are red with exertion at the idea of losing the monarch's teat to suckle.

MACK1:

J.t:

31 Mar 2014 12:27:15pm

err...as a libertarian myself, I am not sure how any conservative government can sleep at night knowing that there exists a government policy that is radically altering the market prices to the detriment of ordinary Australians.

If you believe in the power of market prices, as conservatives claim they do, you can't be in favour of a government policy which radically alters the price of an asset. This is clearly what negative gearing does.

Mitor the Bold:

31 Mar 2014 7:00:03pm

If you run a business at a loss then that loss is tax-deductible - why should running a buy-to-let business be any different? I don't understand the arguments against negative gearing, particularly when the government doesn't want to assume responsibility for social housing.

Mitor the Bold:

01 Apr 2014 7:54:10am

If you are a landlord then your income is taxed - this includes your pay from your job plus interest on savings, dividends, rental income and so on. From this you can deduct the costs of earning that income: bank fees, admin, tax consultant, uniforms, interest on loans and so on. You do this when declaring interest on your bank accounts - you claim as deductions the charges banks make on your deposit accounts. Landlords do the same thing. Total income minus total costs equals taxable income. That's negative gearing - what's the problem?

If the govt provided enough low cost housing there wouldn't be a buy-to-let market. Your argument is uninformed and illogical.

v:

31 Mar 2014 2:21:01pm

AE,

""A radically reduced role for government", he says, as if that's a bad thing."

Only because it is in our current context.

Any political ideology worth its salt looks forward to a day when there is no government, no laws and everybody does as they please. Infantile dogmas like libertarianism demand it now, but not in any total sense. Modern libertarians like Abbott are fanatical about interfering in people's private lives, dictating who they can love, who they can marry, whether or not they bear children, what they are allowed to say, who they are allowed to associate with......but when it comes to regulating the behaviour of corporations, they insist on a hands-off approach.

If we are to enhance our freedoms and move closer to an ideal socioety in which government and coercion are unnecessary, we must first reject libertarianism, bring the corporate sector under the control of the governments that human beings elect and FORCE IT to serve humanity.]

A socialist economy operating within a social-democratic social framwork is the only way to go for anyone interested in reducing the role of government in the lives of individuals. But don't hold your breath. The elimination of the state is a long-term project spanning many generations, and we haven't even started it yet.

v:

31 Mar 2014 2:39:08pm

AE,

"I, and I assume plenty of others, maybe a majority, had never even heard of this 18C until that high profile Bolt case."

There is a simple reason for this. 18C is not designed to interfere with the right to free speech and it is in only the most extreme cases of racial abuse and vilification (like Andrew Bolt's defamatory article) that 18C kicks in. So, in the vast majority of cases, 18C has no impact on the lives of Australians and there is no good reason for them to be concerned in any way with it, any more than they would be concerned with a provision requiring coopers to wash their hands before praying.

In some ways, you could say that 18C is a law against extreme stupidity because you would have to be living in a complete mental vacuum to fall foul of its rather bland provisions. Had Andrew Bolt been able to show that he had taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of his allegations, and that he had made the allegations in good faith with an eye to serving the public interest, he would have got off scott-free. The fact that he could not show that he had done ANY research or taken ANY reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of his allegations suggests that he got off very lightly and should, perhaps, have been locked in a very dark place by a compulsive key-swallower.

Andrew Bolt deserved all that he got, and more. Anyone who cannot say what they believe without falling foul of 18C is an idiot.

taxedoff:

31 Mar 2014 7:01:45pm

so right so right and yet we are now being told that tony clearly told the electorate before the election that he would quash the 18c law and the australian electorate voted him in to do so ..... for his mate andrew who happened to attend the crawling licking grovelling gathering of fawning mates with tony soon after the election at Kiribilli house.

GraemeF:

31 Mar 2014 2:47:51pm

Privatisation results in more corporate rent seekers. You can't vote out a corporation if you don't like them and they have little or no competition. If the Coalition signs up to the TPP with investor state dispute resolutions you can kiss your democratic rights to decide what sort of country Australia becomes as we will be foreign owned and foreign controlled. That is what your 'small government' stupidity will bring us.

AE:

GraemeF:

01 Apr 2014 11:52:45am

You don't need to be a corporation to grow food although you do need to be a corporation to have the power to artificially create a food shortage by controlling commodities markets so you can inflate prices and cause widespread hunger.

The Arab Spring was started as much by massive increases in grain prices and therefore bread prices caused by multi-national corporations buying grain from corporate farms and jacking up prices due to owning such a large share of an essential product.

If you don't believe that there are multi-national corporate parasites operating purely for profit then you are living in ignorance.

v:

In the 1975-76 FY, the total share of national income consumed by corporate profit was just below 15%, and wages and salaries accounted for over 60%.

In the 2007-08 FY, the total share of national income consumed by corporate profits had blown out to 27% and wages and salaries had shrunk to just over 50%.

Can you see the problem? If, as you claim, privatisations will make our economy more efficient, surely the privatisations already foisted upon us would have resulted in a huge increase in the efficiency of our economy. But, as you can see from the above statistics (ABS Ref: 5204.4 Australian System of National Accounts, 2007-08), the efficiency of corporations has declined by a massive 50% in the last 40 years, which coincides rather neatly with the resurgence in privatisations that began with the Arab Oil Shock Recession of the mid-1970's, and the rise of the neo-liberal economic shamanism spouted by fools like Abbott and Hockey.

Have you ever wondered why governments never have enough money, despite the fact that you and I probably pay too much tax? Have a look at the figures above and you will find your answer.

Corporations are becoming too expensive. We can't afford them any more. Rather than "privatising", we should be "nationalising" our productive resources so that they can be organised to serve our needs and wants more efficiently and effectively.

Dame Paul Pott:

31 Mar 2014 6:18:23pm

Here in WA we have one electricity provider, one water provider, one gas provider. If we don't like their service we have to lump it. And capitalism is all about gaining monopolies, or cartels, and because we don't believe in regulation there's nothing to stop monopolies occurring. How long before David Jones and Myers become one, and then we will have Coles and Woolworths joining up. the TPP is going to intensify that and then A.E. can vote with anything he likes but he will not get far.

AE:

31 Mar 2014 6:46:08pm

If you're worried about Myers and DJs teaming up and going on to create a monopoly, you're forgetting that they don't sell anything that you can't already get for significantly cheaper from amazon or Macy's, or any other number of online retailers. Given how cheap they are compared to local retailers, I don't know whey anybody still uses DJs or Myers, but the beauty of capitalism is that you can spend your money how you want.I take your point about power or water monopolies limiting choice, but aren't they government owned in WA?

v:

01 Apr 2014 1:00:23pm

AE,

"You can vote with your feet and refuse to do business with a company, that is the ultimate sanction."

Not as easy as you make out. First of all, thanks to John Howard, we no longer have the right to organise and promote community boycotts. Secondly, what you say would probably make some sense in a free market, or even just one that was not totally monopolised. But we don't have such a thing. The late capitalist world market is controlled by a very few monopoly corporations, rendering the consumer entirely powerless to influence the behaviour of the market or the corporations who dominate it.

But people still have some power over corporations, although not as individuals. We can exercise control over anti-social corporate behaviour through our democratically elected governments. We elect our governments to organise and manage society and the economy in order to satisfy our needs and wants most efficiently, and to ensure that ALL players in the economy act in the best interests of human society.

I suggest that we have given the corporate sector more than enough time to demonstrate that leaving the economy in their hands will deliver the "land fit for heroes" that our ancestors were promised during WW1, and it has failed to deliver. There are more malnourished people in the world than ever before. There are more displaced, effectively stateless people in the world than ever before. Much of the world's population has experienced almost unbroken famine ever since the end of WW2. Even in "advanced" western democracies, human rights are in reverse, the gap between rich and poor is growing exponentially, and our non-renewable resources are being depleted at unsustainable rates.

Our experience of the failure of corporate capitalism suggests that we would be absolute idiots to pursue even more privatisations that will place even more of our economy under the control of these incompetent or even misanthropic and sociopathic corporations.

mortan:

31 Mar 2014 10:03:02am

The daily ABC Abbott bash.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have break from tearing up Tony and look why Bill and his opposition appear to have gone missing and the attack on the government is being driven by the leftist ABC and Fairfax media.

It's a situation never before seen in Australian politics and deserves comment

Luke:

AE:

31 Mar 2014 5:52:32pm

You are probably disappointed that Conroy's attempts to gag the media with his "independent" watchdog (more like government lapdog) didn't come to fruition.That way, we could have been told the "correct" views on the previoud guvvament's towering achievements.

Chris L:

I wrote to Conroy's office to express my opposition to the internet filter and joined the protests. I also haven't voted Labor since it was first proposed.

Of course, that doesn't make me a Coalition supporter. I'm even more concerned by the current government under Abbott.

Using the military to deal with civilians issues and hide government actions from the people, shutting down independent humanitarian investigations, raiding the offices of a lawyer representing Australia's opponent in a legal case, making threatening statements against our national broadcaster for not towing the government line. These are all warning signs, much like the filter was.

MDG:

31 Mar 2014 9:09:07pm

The funny thing there is that Conroy's proposed reforms wouldn't have done a thing to prevent The Daily Telegraph from printing those shrieking front pages. You clearly have no idea what the reforms entailed.

What they proposed was essentially the same kind of system for the print media as already exists (via ACMA) for the broadcast media - which clearly has done anything BUT stifle dissent given that Alan Jones and The Bolt Report are both still on-air.

AE:

Mitor the Bold:

31 Mar 2014 11:02:40am

It makes a change from hearing about Gillard's or Rudd's policy announcements by reference to Abbott's criticism of them rather than by hearing them verbatim. I think maybe you misunderstand the role of news media - it's not there to publish government PR; the Coalition has its own publicists paid for by party donors. The media is there to analyse and criticise, not publicise.

jarasp:

31 Mar 2014 10:10:25am

Tony will have to get back on his bike and try to reconnect with mainstream Australia. I really don't think he ever had it in the first place. The vast majority cannot believe in his Knights and Dames for Australia. He is even to the right of Howard. We are starting to see the real Tony and it's not what we want or need. How far backwards can we go?

paulinadelaide:

31 Mar 2014 10:11:45am

I've read numerous accounts of how demented TA must be to reintroduce K&D's. Most appear to be from the Labour/Left.Of course not one refers to what previously was a TA taboo - his Catholicism - go figure!Personally I find these awards in either category pretty bland.I know people that have an OZ award but don't advertise the fact. I have been approached, several times, to support an "application" and refused.I think mainstream Australia doesn't care, nearly all of us will never recieve such an award. And its clear a future govt will move quickly to change the system back.So why did Abbott do it? I wonder if it's to underline to certain sections of the community that there's a new bloke in charge. That this community lost the last election (and in essence lost the previous one). That those who hark back to 2007-2013 as glory years are likely to be bitter about what's to come.Of course if he brings them back because he actually beleives in them the blokes demented.CheersSirPaulinadelaide A-Z etc.

hidi:

31 Mar 2014 10:11:47am

OH Dear. The first paragraph is enough to herald yet another bout of Abbott hate on the drum.

As they say constantly saying the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome is a sure sign of madness. And there is much repeating in any Tony Abbott hate forum on the ABC drum to make anyone mad.

stj911:

The Runt :

31 Mar 2014 10:14:19am

It is my understanding that one the honour of being made a Dame or Knight is not just British but a tradition in a lot of countries and two the honour that is now being made is just the next step up in the Order of Australia medal hierarchy previously it was Companion now the Dame and Knight are the highest and the Companion slips to second. As was stated by the PM yesterday they will be awarded only to those that reach high office without seeking it, so that rules out any pollie and their ilk. So we have all had a bit of fun blown a bit of hot air now just get over it. I suspect these will only be handed out sparingly to GGs governors and maybe judges. Nice thought actually that we now have the ability to award a title that is earnt by service that is widely recognizable worldwide. Because as good as Companion of the Order of Australia is who even amongst Australians realise what it is. But then again I am just a poor simple tradesman what would I know, other than to read what is available not just listen to squeaky wheels looking for some where to sound off.

mortan:

Rattus rattus:

31 Mar 2014 2:24:56pm

According to Tony Abbott incoming GGs will automatically receive one of his fawning British-based knighthoods or damehoods.

That doesn't allow much room for error in selecting GGs, does it? I still remember the euphoria when Peter Hollingworth was appointed GG, but the feeling vanished when his role in covering up clerical abuse as Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane was revealed.

Abbott in his forelock-tugging way has left the door open for a repeat of the Hollingworth example. Hopefully the door will be closed by a return to a purely Australian honours system.

Hodor:

Peter of Melbourne:

31 Mar 2014 1:15:43pm

I agree Hodor

Pretty bad, however not quite as bad as the ones who created all the problems they now have to find fixes for. Dont like the fixes? Then maybe you will demand more of Labor next time they take office rather than allowing complete and utter incompetents to run riot with the public's credit card.

Sir Trent Toogood:

v:

31 Mar 2014 3:05:26pm

aGuy,

"The best guide to the government being in/out of touch is the polls. How are they going?"

Well, in the last NewsPoll, Abbott's approval rating was 40% and his disapproval rating was 50%. Had an election been held on the day of the poll, Labor would have scraped in to government by a couple of seats. In a recent poll of over 2,000 people, 84% believed that the Speaker of the House was biased and only 14% believed the contrary. In another recent poll, over 80% of responsdents opposed any changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. In another, a huge majority rejected the need for a Royal Commission into trade unions.

Considering that it is barely six months since this motley crew won a huge victory in a general election, these are terrible results. It is difficult to remember a comparable example of a government squandering the goodwill of an electorate so quickly or so completely.

Rupert should have known that you can lead an Abbott to the Lodge, but you can't make him a leader. Cory Bernardi: stand by for re-packaging as a "leadership contender" and "rising star".

Gary:

awake:

31 Mar 2014 10:19:54am

These explosions of right wing tea party/Thatcher stuff are really no surprise. Head kickers do not change their spots - not born to lead, just kick. The attitude is so un-Australian, it reeks of the days of the Raj. Amanda Vanstone has warned the Prime Minister in an article today about appearing so out of touch with the mainstream.

It is not so much (although pretty frightening), the climate change denying, cuts to all and sundry, privatisation, etc, but the attitude of born to rule - the assumption that they are always right and we voters really do not have a clue. Being ripped off by shinning, lovely, smiling people selling investments and being told we can now say anything about anyone whether they can defend themselves or not - is pretty un-Australian in my book.

What is worse main stream media do nothing to help educate the population whether your leaning is left or right. Fact checkers should apply to all media outlets. We need a future where people actually can trust their politicians. Men and women who will work for ALL of us, not just "people like us" that attitude is SO tea party America. All very sick and very protective of the few.

AE:

v:

31 Mar 2014 4:01:50pm

awake,

"The attitude is so un-Australian, it reeks of the days of the Raj."

Well spotted.

But this is not new. Australian politics has essentially always been a battle between nationalist reformers who see Australia's future as that of an independent nation populated by healthy, well-educated, affluent and happy citizens; and colonialists who see their role as controllers of the local population, resources and economy, on behalf of foreign masters.

The former stance is predicated on the quite reasonable assumption that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Australians that would disqualify us from achieving nationhood, and therefore we have both a right and a responsibility to stand on our own two feet. The latter is predicated on the assumption that Australians are fundamentally deficient and cannot survive without the benign intervention of a worthy protector. Until Whitlam came to power, our court system was built on the assumption that, if we got it too terribly wrong, one could always appeal to the Brittish "Privvy Council" and today, forty years after his great, nation-building reforms we STILL can't trust ourselves to make a law without going cap-in-hand to the representative of a foreign monarch for "Royal Assent".

It is difficult to see whether Abbott sees himself as some sort of latter day Great Sahib or as the overseer of a company town. Either way, he is simply the latest in a long string of anti-independence collaborators feathering his own nest in the service of a foreign master. It's just that previous incumbents (Howard, Fraser, McMahon, Gorton, Holt, Menzies, Lyons) were better at hiding it.

Steve_C:

31 Mar 2014 10:21:11am

"I believe that Australians don't see the relationship between an individual's right to free speech and their social obligations as simplistically as that."

After my many decades of observing, teaching, interacting and living with my fellow Australians; I wouldn't be so prepared as yourself in ascribing a more complex intellectual capacity to the vast majority of my fellow Australians, than I would ascribe to the vast majority of Americans.

What I mean to say - In simplistic terms that most Aussies and Yanks will be able to wrap their vacuum filled craniums around, is... there's more than enough Aussies and Yanks who only understand simplistic 'stuff'!

And even more to the point; there's way more Australians alive today who think very much in the "simplistic American way" about "Freedom!!" than those who remain alive and understand Australia's post Federation commitment to 'freedom' as a concept not indelibly linked to "Truth, Justice and the American way".

"That doesn't deny some deep-seated intolerance in this country - when it comes to race issues we have a pretty shameful history."

Maybe if one judges "intolerance" based only on the actions of those bigots who seem to inevitably (bigots just lust after jobs/positions where they can unleash their bigotry after all!) fill 'managerial' positions within the various levels of 'governance'; whether those institutions of 'governance' be public, private - secular or denominational... that might seem to be the case: HOWEVER, if one looks at the only ever direct polling of the Australian plebiscite concerning issues where some degree of bigotry could be assumed from the result obtained; it's quite clear that the vast majority of Australians dislike bigots no matter what their race, colour, gender, religion, clothing, food, drink, habits, eye stalks or lack of, etc,etc, etc. are.

Where Brandis falls on his face is; while no one has a problem with a bigot being free to be bigot; the bigot has to be aware the rest of us are free to treat them like the bigot they are.

No amount of changing legislation is going to make a decent Aussie a 'friend' of any bigot; simply by trying to force them to be friendly, lest they be prosecuted under the new legislation. Bigots will be as shunned as they've always been, regardless of the bigot's bigot friends currently holding sway in the home of bigots - Capitol Hill, Canberra.

Terry:

"Where Brandis falls on his face is; while no one has a problem with a bigot being free to be bigot; the bigot has to be aware the rest of us are free to treat them like the bigot they are."

I think you have missed the point. All Minister Brandis has suggested is that government has no place in controlling bigots. Given that determining who is a bigot is a very subjective process, that is the right decision. that is before one considers the virtue of laws that do nothing to stop racism but only to censor free speech.

You and your fellow thinkers will find that you can treat bigots as you wish (within the law).

I, for example, will continue to mock anti-USA, anti-Israel and anti-West bigots: there is no lack of them on this very forum.

Pete:

31 Mar 2014 12:47:25pm

@Terry, I believe it is you who has missed the point. S.18 doesn't control "bigotry" - that was Brandis' word, not the law's.

S.18 controls racist acts. And it makes it explicitly clear what does or does not constitute an unlawful racist act. There are many, many pieces of legislation which regulate societal conduct in a similar fashion and we are perfectly content with these. The question you should be asking yourself is this: why is this particular piece of legislation suddenly so important? We've had it for 20 years. The rest of the western world has similar legislation. There has never been a public outcry before. What has changed? The answer, of course is: Bolt. That is it. This whole exercise is nothing more than paying back Bolt for his support in the lead up to the election and to ensure that (influential) support is retained.

May I ask you this: do you enjoy/listen to Andrew Bolt? Pls be honest.

FredN:

31 Mar 2014 3:04:07pm

So Terry, is it beyond your powers to have a more complex understanding of the world than us and them? Black or white?

More complex thought does allow you to be pro-Israel, have Israeli friends, but believe Israel is wrong in what they are doing in the West Bank. The same could be said of your anti-USA and anti-West sentiments. Dividing the world into friends and enemies is simplistic and destructive. It is the kind of thought pattern that has some on this forum describing this article as "Abbott hate". Only in this black and white world would reasonable criticism of the actions of the current PM be described as hate. Believing someone is wrong does not require that you therefore hate him or that you are anti whatever group you define him has belonging to.

Terry:

Hmmm - so the banner I saw at my local university saying "If you hate Tony Abbot then the Socialist Alliance is for you" was a figment of my imagination.

Those banner at the "March for March" (or whatever) that called for his death and/or abortion were merely expressing mild dislike?

That's a relief.

And without boasting of my mental powers, you seem to have difficulty understanding me. The kernel of my argument is that bigotry is defined by the beholder. Someone who is a bigot to me is simply expressing "reasonable criticism" of the PM to you.

Someone questioning the entitlement of some people to funds assigned for the disadvantaged is not only a bigot, but also a racist, to many on this forum

That is what makes such laws a joke and a threat to free speech. Only left-of-centre governments ever use such laws, otherwise the anti-US, anti-white, anti-male bigots would have been shut down years go.

PS Don't give me the old "I don't hate the US/Israel, I hate the policies" line: haven't noticed any change in attitude even since under the new Pres the US has surrendered and Israel has succumbed to releasing mass murderers just to begin peace talks.

FredN:

01 Apr 2014 1:26:10pm

A banner from the Socialist Alliance, like that is a broadly supported group, or a small percentage of the banners among the hundreds at March in March prove that all who oppose Abbott are hate filled communists?

As I said just because you see the world as black and white doesn't make it that way. Try opening the other eye, maybe it can see in full colour.

Your PS is equally simplistic in the extreme. Actually nonsensical may be a better description.

v:

31 Mar 2014 4:06:58pm

Terry,

"I think you have missed the point. All Minister Brandis has suggested is that government has no place in controlling bigots."

So, what is so special about bigotry that gives it this unique status? After all, exactly the same argument could be made in favour of the legalisation of murder, paedophillia, fraud, rape, theft.........

What Brandis misses (and this he shares in common with all Tories) is that the concept of rights has a flip-side called "responsibility". We have a right to get angry at someone. We have got a right to get so angry that we want to kill them. Nobody should infringe upon this right. But we have a RESPONSIBILITY not to run around the countryside killing people who annoy us and, if we fail to discharge this responsibility, we fall foul of the law.

So yes, we have the RIGHT to fear and loathe all those not like us. We have a RIGHT to believe that dark-skinned people are descended from "mud-men" while white-skinned people are descended from angels. But we have a RESPONSIBILITY to treat our fellow citizens with respect and not to vilify or otherwise attack them simply because of the colour of their skin, the language they speak or the God that they worship. If we fail to discharge this responsibility, we fall foul of the law. The mere fact that "we have a right to be a bigot" should not protect you any more than the fact that we have a right to hate our neighbour excuses murder.

George Brandis is an expert on the rights of George Brandis, but clearly has no idea of the responsibilities of George Brandis. Sort of like a teenager, really. He's probably a bit old for that. He really should grow up.

Terry:

Bigotry is a bit like selfishness or other vices. Nobody likes them but we all have at least a bit of each. Yes, even those on the left!

To equate a vice to a crime is a bit of loose thinking. Nobody would ever claim you have a right to rape, but you have a right to think that all men are rapists.

We have the right to think anything we like and say nearly as much.

Governments have no rights: only powers given to them by their electors and we should be very cautious to only give them the powers needed to run a society. Giving them power to try to change society is a very risky affair.

Steve_C:

01 Apr 2014 1:19:46am

"To equate a vice to a crime is a bit of loose thinking."

I think you've got the wrong end of the bull there Tezza!! The only thing I can see that's loose, is your rather limited (wonder what that could be due to? Not political bias I hope...) interpretation of the word "vice"!

There's more to "vice" than just bad habits!! I guess that's why Australian police forces had Vice Squads... to go around the place looking for people with bad habits. Or maybe it was to pick up the deputies of the real bad guys? Maybe they were just a bunch of coppers who kept an eye on the next best thing to royalty - you know; those Vice-regal types?!!!

I wonder how you'd explain the connection between corruption and vice? What's that you say? None whatsoever...

No wonder the repeal of legislation that has in many ways at it's heart, the denying of corruption and it's attendant vices strikes you as worthy.

I imagine you'd also see measures taken to ensure even more safety in the workplace or in society generally as "over zealous meddling by a bunch of Nanny state red tape dispensing bureaucrats" - until someone relaxes those measures and the poo hits the fan at which time you can have the big old whinge and try to sue someone's butt off; rather than taking responsibility for your own desire to not have to abide by guidelines you think are unnecessary.

So many Aussies these days want their cake and to eat it too... and all without paying the ferryman.

Terry:

I apologise - I thought it was clear that I was using the word "vice" in the sense that it is opposite to "virtue".

So once again: bigotry is not a crime and to attempt to treat it as a crime is ridiculous. You may as well try to criminalise glutton.

I am not sure what the rest of your post is about.

Bias? Are you suggesting that a desire to scrap useless laws that prevent open discussion of, for instance, people receiving funds intended for the disadvantaged, is somehow indicative of support for a political party? I would hope not. Or do you think I show a bias for free speech and open discussion of bigotry? If so I plead guilty.

How you got to associate this with defending corruption or reducing work safety is beyond me.

I think you need to separate your confusion between legislation intended to prevent damage and legislation intended to prevent feeling upset.

v:

01 Apr 2014 10:37:43am

Steve,

"I guess that's why Australian police forces had Vice Squads... to go around the place looking for people with bad habits. "

Ah...the mention of vice squads gave me a rush of nostalgia for the glory days of Bob Askin and Joh Bjelke-Petersen, when the "Vice Squads" ran the brothels, "sly grog" shops, rent boys, pornographers and drug pushers so much more effectively and efficiently that the "privateers" and bikie gangs who took them over. Those were the days, when a copper could make a hobby of his vices and a career of his hobby.

Of course, Il Duce and O'Barrell are doing their best to restore the "salad days" of police corruption, working overtime to wrest control of the meth labs and knocking shops back from the bikies. Given time, it is to be hoped that the dark days in which Goos and Wran insisted that the police should stay within the law, as well as enforcing it, will soon be nought but a distant memory.

EvilPundit:

Steve_C:

31 Mar 2014 11:35:41am

So Terry; I take it that you feel the ant Queen should have no place in controlling the behaviour of the rest of the ants?

If you feel that Senator Brandis believes that there is no role for Government in defining preferred behaviour within the borders of this country - then a) once the Government has divested itself of all public assets, and b) taken such a profoundly "hands off" approach to Governance; what role is there for any further Governance?

And yet, Senator Brandis' simple act of attempting to change something is "hands on" governance. "Hands off" governance would by definition require him keeping his bib out of things - yet he has not kept his "hands off"; which to anyone but the most trusting of types, would imply an agenda... I'll assume you won't agree, but that's the nature of this sort of forum - and the ABC ought to be congratulated for not only allowing such discussion, but fostering it.

And @EvilPundit: seeing things for what they are doesn't mean one hates them, or love them for that matter.

GJA:

31 Mar 2014 10:29:03am

It's the distinction between being ideologically driven instead of having ideas. The former leads to illogical decisions and the other can be used to develop policies. Look for similar results in the forthcoming budget.

bob:

31 Mar 2014 10:29:33am

It always surprises me that when you suggest to staunch liberal shopkeepers that you would like to set up a pie-cart or mobile tool truck or some other such competitive enterprise near theirs, they are up in arms and insist that you apply for licences etc and yet they complain about tax and red tape. I guess that the tangle of redtape is ok as long as it benefits them. Try any of the following - sleep/camp on your own land, build a house without any paperwork, import an urban electric vehicle, conduct a small business from your property without a licence etc..... non of these are possible under Tony's government, I look forward to the day when they are.

Pert:

31 Mar 2014 6:35:26pm

We own a block just outside of a rural town in the South West of Western Australia. There is no electricity, no phone line, no postal service or rubbish collection service, yet we pay around $1,000 per year in rates.

If we were to spend $15,000 on a waste disposal system (which has to be of the same standard as if you are building a house) we would still only be able to 'camp' on the block for three days out of 28 days, unless we have a building parcel approved and we are seen to be building, then we can stay on the block for up to a year.

Aside from the council being obsessed with hand basins and grease traps, apparently it is to protect the poor caravan park owner in town.

Martin:

There is nothing wrong with conservatism or libertarianism or any other "ism" including communinism- in the right place at the right time.

Without government action there may have been no phone system in Australia- although private enterprise may have eventually done it later. Was it the correct decision later to sell it?

I am on satelite internet now- also created by government. Who owns that now?

To me its more important that I have access to something at a reasonable price than its ownership.

This is the "COMMON"wealth of Australia. All "ism"s should really be judged on their ability to deliver to ALL the people over the long term. In Australian politics each party has dogmas that they try to enforce on everyone whether we like it or not.

blax5:

31 Mar 2014 10:34:32am

My late aunt was a theologian and vicar (in the protestant church in the old country) who also lived within a church organisation. I learnt early on that the sense of reality there left a lot to be desired.

cameron:

31 Mar 2014 10:39:01am

Whats happening IMO is the slow and deliberate morphing of the far-right into a Tea party'est movement. The rise of very conservative small government thinking, but I think this will backfire on them because as the article says Australia isn't America.

Dee:

31 Mar 2014 10:46:02am

The scariest part about these laws as they currently exist is the restriction on criticising religious ideologies that are sexist and seek to deny women the opportunity to participate fully in society. Social approbation should be the consequence of Holocaust deniers not a jail cell. It is ridiculous that a young man had his life ruined and was sentenced to two years in jail for wearing a t-shirt. Such is our society when people sometimes recieve less for violent crimes against children. Such repression and bullying against dissent in society will only raise the stakes with simmering resentments reaching the point where they break out as riots. Far better for concerns and views to be aired before it reaches that point.

The Jones Crusher:

31 Mar 2014 10:47:05am

We had a very clear demonstration from Mr Abbott that he was born to rule and that Australia is NOT a democracy! He did not even seek the approval of his own party room when reaffirming Australia's subservience to the English Monarchy!

Dave:

Mitor the Bold:

Libertarianism is a great philosophy for people who already have money and power - it kind of says that their good fortune is a result of their exceptionalism, even if they've inherited it.

It's not so good for the average Aussie who is an employee of Libertarian exceptionalists who should feel lucky that they have a job at all and should expect no guarantees over hours or conditions because they are not exceptional.

On a level playing field Libertarianism might have some virtue, but, of course, the playing field is not level. Gina Reinhart, for example, got what she's got by being born, not by being heroic, as Ayn Rand might have you believe. You got what you've got mostly by being born too - is Libertarianism working for you?

Mitor the Bold:

01 Apr 2014 10:53:36am

"Do you think I should turn it down on principle?"

No, I think you should send it to me, I have few principles. Inheritance muddies the waters. Like with mega-corporations that distort competition, and therefore destroy free markets, inheritance distorts individual prosperity. Monarchy is the ultimate expression of inheritance.

Inheritance is undemocratic - in spite of the rhetoric, a rich baby is valued more by society than a poor one. It will eat better food, go to better schools, become better socialised and will ultimately grow to be far more successful than a poor baby.

We all know this - we all know the occasional rags-to-riches exception is just the exception. We all know the Bar and Industry and Medicine and Banking is peopled by rich babies. We all know the building site and the reception counter and the dole office and the methadone clinic are peopled by poor babies.

Libertarianism says we can all have it all - but reality shouts louder than Libertarianism and bellows quite the opposite. Rich people can have it all - the rest of us have to make do with what's left.

I think the numbers are on my side: the richest 85 people on Earth are as wealthy as the poorest 3,500 million people.

Terry:

"In recent years we have seen increasing efforts by neo-liberal ideologues to create a dog-eat-dog society."

Au contraire!

In recent years we have seen increasing efforts by socialist ideologues to create a victimhood society.

The removal of a restriction on free speech that not only fails to deter racism (there is now a move to increase the racist sections of the Constitution!) but has led to an inability to even discuss issues of importance.

When will it be acknowledged that giving special treatment to a "race" leads to resentment and increases the risk of a backlash against that "race"?

The Cronulla riots were a prime example: years of turning a blind eye to harassment and physical attacks by members of a particular ethnicity led to a build up of tension. Then a young man is assaulted protecting his girlfriend from a gang of "legally untouchables" and the floodgates of repressed anger burst open.

Equal treatment, assistance for all the needy, no treating individuals differently by "race".

Merely forcing one person to determine the "race" of another is to promote racism.

R.Dorkins:

31 Mar 2014 11:34:04am

["The removal of a restriction on free speech that not only fails to deter racism (there is now a move to increase the racist sections of the Constitution!)"]

You should re-read what you have written here, it makes absolutely no sense.How are we going to "increase the racist sections"? Specifically, which parts of the constitution are racist? Who exactly is trying to increase them? Are they tring to make the larger or just enlarging the font size? When is the referendum and why, as I haven't been living under a rock, have I not heard about it?

["When will it be acknowledged that giving special treatment to a "race" leads to resentment and increases the risk of a backlash against that "race"? The Cronulla riots were a prime example"]

Oh yes. We all remember only to well the roving gangs of drunken, flag waving, socialist, progressive watermelons, beating up on second generation immigrants of "Middle Eastern" appearance, incited by that well known communist Alan Jones.

Terry:

31 Mar 2014 10:04:12pm

I tried to answer this before but it must have gone into the bit-bin.

There has been a well publicised move to insert provisions into the Constitution to allow preference to be given to one race. There is also a move to include specific mention of that race into the Preamble.

There are existing racist provisions in the Constitution which, it is suggested, will be deleted/altered.

I assumed everyone was aware of this.

To remove racist sections only to insert others is ridiculous, but it is on a par with legislation that attempts to prevent anyone feeling insulted by reason of their race. (Note, not being insulted - they just have to feel they have).

As for Cronulla - look at the causes of the "riot". Years of complaints about the behaviour of gangs of "middle eastern appearance" young men, all ignored by police, councils and government. Then the spark is lit and it is the victims who are blamed. (A bit like the umpire penalising the player who responds to the "niggler").

Steve_C:

"(A bit like the umpire penalising the player who responds to the "niggler")."

So you recognise that certain human behaviours have their counterparts/analogies in other human activities... and guess what!!

I'd bet London to a brick, that even if you saw the ump was about to penalise a player who was the victim of a sneaky little pile of dung, you'd get upset before conceding that "it's all part of the sport/game" and that ultimately the better player will end up 'winning'.

Of course, if you'd feel it's better to remove the rules from the rule book that aid the ref in showing the red card if and when he spots the sneaky little pile of human excrement provoking/niggling/cajoling the 'fairer' player... that's your prerogative; despite the fact that removing it actually aids the sneaky little piles of human excrement from every team and code to get away with even more sneaky underhanded cajoling/backstabbing/connivance.

Then again; I'm witnessing far more ability in the Australians of today, to blast away at both their feet with both barrels of a double barreled shottie than ever before. Forget the need for Dr. Nitschke, trust in our own ability to self-destruct whilst convincing ourselves we're on the 'yellow brick' road to the promised land...

As for acknowledging the Aborigines in the Constitution's preamble... Why couldn't you write the word "Aboriginals"? Are you that scared of what might happen by 'saying' IT?!!!

Jim:

Malcolm:

31 Mar 2014 11:09:49am

Mainstream Australia is a very complex place. I'm a natural conservative despite my avowed left leaning politics. Those politics are a result of a lifetime spent watching our conservatives slowly transform themselves into a rightist lobby group with very confused values and the inability to accept that a just society where those who can't are helped by those who can is the conservative ideal. It is a pity that the need to keep reasserting this simple truth is so often lost in the internecine warfare of our political system.

Part of a just society is freedom for people from the ongoing social disease of vilification be it by colour, race or religion. But this so-called conservative government which in reality is just a strange marriage of discount store libertarianism and the Tea Party appears to think the right to free speech should be cheapened by adding gratuitous insults to its values. A sad thing indeed that shows just how far these current "conservatives" have retreated from the old definition of conservative. The imperial honours thing was a side show which tells us more about our PM's lack of contact with the real world of 21st century Australia (and his Cabinet) than anything else - but then what does one expect from a man with little experience outside the institutions of the church or government.

I don't share Mr Hawker's guess that the events of last week were a diversion. The previous government was promising a tough budget and Mr Hockey has been signalling this for a while. I think ultimately last week was just a series of silly blunders by the PM and his government (e.g. Brandis' bigot defence), reaffirming as the other blunders like all the job losses, travel allowance rorts, inability to accept that asylum seekers do have a right to due process, the AWH/Sinodinos connection etc., that they really aren't much of a government at all.

Libertarianism and Tea Party principles have always sat uneasily with proper conservative values - perhaps our PM should examine the experience of the US Republican Party and how it it has been undermined by the Tea Party. Blatant white-anting by small minded people is not the way to assure voters or govern effectively.

MJLC:

31 Mar 2014 1:36:34pm

Well said Malcolm.

The "party of Menzies" is on a long march transforming itself into a drunken party for yobbos. The fact that one of theirs was a Prime Minister for sixteen years and yet forms absolutely no part of modern-day myth-making or political culture shows you just how far down that path they've already sprinted. Labor had Gough for just three at the very fag-end of that extended post-war period, and he's already been beatified. Curtin and Chifley were giants who the pale, modern imitators try and cling to whenever they can - and for very good reasons.

Setting yourself up as a hospice for the terminally disenchanted, for the anger addicts, and for those whose only brief flirtation with happiness is when they see someone they don't like being unhappy will always be a catch-all that has a chance of grabbing governance, but has no natural attributes that can keep it there.

By definition, putting a natural conservative in the same room as a natural radical and asking them to both wear the same uniform is never going to end well.

Luke:

Hugo:

31 Mar 2014 11:14:47am

Tony Abbott a Libertarian? If only! Sorry Bruce, but that is the most laughable claim I've read in weeks. Get back to me when he reins in the security services, comes out in support of marriage equality, scraps his parental leave scheme, criticises anti-bikie laws and introduces a Bill of Rights. If the man was really a Libertarian, I would have voted for him.

This tension is deliberately miss-characterised, Hawker thinks that "tea party" has a negative connotation and thus trying to stick that label on the Liberal party along with Libertarianism will help him get back in with the leaders of the Labor party.

At the moment his relationship is likely tarnished after tearing his own party apart for the past 5 years working for Rudd...

If there was a Libertarian tension in the Liberal Party, I would maybe get interested in politics.

Hudson Godfrey:

31 Mar 2014 11:22:38am

in relation to the premise that a version of libertarianism rather than conservatism is what is on offer here, I think we have to question what weird brand of libertarianism favours free speech almost to the point of condoning hate speech yet shuts the door on women's issues and gay marriage. Sounds more like the narrow interests of stupid old white men being justified in terms of whatever ideology comes readily to hand than a real libertarian position to me. And yes, I do equate those kinds of interests with a the kind of regressive conservatism that evokes imperial honours without any public consultation whatsoever.

Malcolm:

31 Mar 2014 12:04:23pm

The philosophy of Libertarianism, if it can be called a philosophy, has always been followed by arch social conservatives who do not accept gay marriage, women's equality, conservation etc. It was basically a mass vocalization by the old white supremacist small government anti-social change lobby once they discovered the internet. It grew out of the same jejune disjointed world view that produced the bible belt and "Pastor" Fred Phelps. Sure our current Libertarians have tried to cover up this heritage but it always surfaces whenever they try to defend some nonsensical insult to our intelligence or claim their "rights" have been infringed.

Hudson Godfrey:

31 Mar 2014 5:06:07pm

Well I guess nothing's ever as simple as it seems....

There are some who purport to support Libertarianism as you say only to the extent that it recommends us to a kind of law of the jungle mentality. That is to say as long as they count themselves among the so called "fittest" then it serves their self interest to brandish their copies of Atlas Shrugged as enthusiastically as any Bible basher does the book they haven't read either.

On the other hand Ron Paul, among America's and therefore I suspect the world's more prominent libertarians actually supports gay marriage. That he believes quite completely in keeping government out of the bedroom, wants to end the war on drugs and advocates a vastly reduced role for the military are aspects of his politics I actually find quite easy to agree with. It's the similarly ideological approach he has to deregulating the economy that I think would quickly fall so far foul of unintended consequences as to be completely untenable.

So I'm not saying there aren't kinder conservatives in the world, only that if you want to match regressive social policy with a view of economics in which even the harshest Thatcherites never saw fit to surrender all control then the word you're looking for is conservative.

Malcolm:

31 Mar 2014 6:03:46pm

I think that Mr Paul would represent a minority view amongst the bulk of libertarians whose political heritage is as I outlined. One thing is for certain we don't need the down home values of the US Midwest foisted on us in Australia. We have enough problems without attracting the Know-Nothings, Nativists and other products of their badly skewed society. As for supporting even gay marriage I suspect that their "pastors" would put a stop to that pretty damn quick. The Libertarian persuasion is one that presents one aspect of its values (personal liberty) to the public and keeps hidden its dark anti-intellectual side and the fact that that liberty of which they speak is only the liberty to do as they instruct. Conservatism is quite healthy and I suspect that most like myself are at heart conservative despite my support for the left but Libertarian Conservatism is a whole different can of worms.

Chrism:

And gay marriage isn't a libertarian issue. Gays are free to enter into any relationship they want, make whatever vows and commitments to each other they want and to live in any way they choose.

Gay marriage is not about what gays are allowed to do, but about the way the rest of society and specifically the government regards the relationships they do choose : Is it a marriage or is it something else. Whatever your views on gay marriage it has nothing to do with libertarianism.

"The age of entitlement" now applies only to those expecting a living wage or the wind-farm industry. It no longer applies to chocolate tourism; women of calibre; pre-eminent Australians; any public or private entity who falls within The Nationals' sphere of influence; knights and dames; the resources sector; or Rupert Murdoch, whose seemingly profitable Rugby League team (69% owned) can count itself as one of the many $multi-million recipients of taxpayer largesse.

"Free speech" has been redefined to mean simply "bigotry". The government will continue to support all attempts to censor independent media organisations, social media and critics of News Corp.

"Redundancy" has, at the behest of our new leader become "liberation".

"Giving the planet the benefit of the doubt" now means "Giving the planet the consequences of unleashed and unaccountable resources, logging and mining sectors."

So, in this new post-modern Coalition world, words mean neither more nor less than than their users' intend them to mean. We'd better get used to it, eh?

MDG:

Yakadeeyak:

31 Mar 2014 12:08:34pm

Dames & Knights are as outdated as believing there is still an empire the sun will never set upon. It was not the right thing to do and we need to start our own system to honor hard working Australians.

As for Free speech, well Brandis, let me say this, you may in fact actually upset Tony's narrow minded view on the Empire, surely unshackling free speech of the past would in fact open up the Empire to some home truths about atrocities committed that in many cases rival those of Germany or Japan, & we can't have that said. It is the unspoken word they may just fear.

Dove:

31 Mar 2014 12:10:34pm

Honest questions: what does a knight/damehood entitle you to?

Do you get a higher tax-free threshold? Do hoteliers have to give you a compliementary pint? Do you get a box at the footy? Or is it just like being a Doctor or Professor or Captain? Just a title used to try and get a better table for dinner? Will it be a crime to impersonate a knight, like it is to impersonate a veteran or a lady before 9pm?

If they are conferred by Her Maj, why can't the PM simply knight someone? What particular authority does he lack?

Alpo:

31 Mar 2014 12:11:39pm

"Whatever his motivations, it just says one thing to middle Australia - he is out of touch with mainstream thinking."... Let's never ever forget that he was elected only because the conservative Mainstream Media showered the waves and the pages with a never-seen before barrage of lies and manipulation, directed at voting: No-Labor. Fortunately for our Democracy, the No-Labor vote didn't go all to the Coalition, but a big chunk went to independents and minor Parties, and now the whole of Abbott's agenda is stuck in the Senate.

I agree with your point about Libertarianism. There is some scope for it's expected success in the USA, given the obsession of the Americans* with individualism. But even in the USA, the current brand of Libertarianism is just a degeneration of their historical and far more palatable 18th-19th Centuries-style Liberalism (see John Stuart Mill "On Liberty").... in other words, the Liberal Party has lost its way.

Australia is a different place, with a different historical tradition to the USA. Australia is a perfect place to combine Mill's Liberalism with the principles of Socialism, into our own brand of Social Democracy. That's the real challenge we face and that has been developing since Whitlam, and then Hawke and Keating, and it continued with Rudd and Gillard. This troglodytic Abbott Government is just a little (max-3 years long) historical accident.

--------------------------------------------------------------*Sorry Central and South Americans, I know that you also call yourself Americans.

MJLC:

31 Mar 2014 12:28:57pm

"Now the cat is out of the bag"

Wrong. The cat was never in the bag.

Electoral physics dictates that when you have what are perceived as two idiots vying for one job it isn't possible (without resorting to parallel-universe theory) to despatch both at the same time. By necessity it takes three years to do this, and equally as obviously it's the incumbent who had to be the first to go.

There is a very simple reason why this government didn't get a honeymoon, haven't had their 2PP with a "5" in front of it since December, and are starting to panic quite badly and lose the plot with a whole lot of side-issue gibberish that benefits Shorten by default (and he needs it - on his own he isn't top-drawer material, and I'm sure won't last the distance to 2016).

The reason is that, despite what conservatives desperately want to believe, Australia didn't want to get rid of the Rudd/Gillard era - they actually wanted to get rid of the Gillard/Abbott era (Rudd was a non-event when he returned ostensibly to "save the furniture"). The years 2013-16 are simply the other half of that two-act play.

Alpo:

31 Mar 2014 5:00:23pm

"and I'm sure won't last the distance to 2016".... To provide the Liberals with more: "chaos in the ALP", "they have lost their way", "they are not fit to govern", "the faceless man has been knifed, assassinated, triturated by even more faceless men"... etc.? The ALP can't be so suicidal to do that.Shorten obviously can't do an "Abbott", he must be far more proactive, simply because there is no mainstream media that will push his kart as he lazily sits on it. He is starting to warm up, although a bit too slowly I would agree with that, and I expect that he will continue to improve. But I also expect the other Labor frontbenchers to do their bit and throw themselves into the political "battlefield"....

MJLC:

31 Mar 2014 6:33:21pm

(1) I think you're confusing the difference between the impact on the average punter of an Opposition Leader switch less than 12 months out from a general election with the impact of changing a Prime Minister (twice) in full stride. They AREN'T the same thing - not even close. The Liberals wasted a hell of a lot of time on that sort of garbage in the run-up to 2007 - if they want to go down the same path again in 2016, that's fine by me.

(2) The only time Shorten comes across as speaking with conviction is when he's on the pay-and-conditions theme - presumably because that's his background and strong suit. For everything else I don't believe he has the cut-through and/or warmth-generation he needs.

(3) How far any of this goes is clearly limited by Rudd's new leadership rules - Abbott may yet get a life via Rudd from beyond the political grave.

Alpo:

31 Mar 2014 7:26:55pm

About your (1), let's not forget that Abbott was under great pressure to resign at various stages before the last election because his personal approval was pretty dismal. The pressure went up quite considerably in December 2012, he then recovered in early 2013 and then there was a second moment of panic when Rudd came back and the polls went 50/50. Why didn't the Liberals change? Because they knew that it would be politically suicidal. Their propaganda had Labor cornered with the story of instability and chaos. They couldn't have afforded a chaos of their own. The same with Labor in opposition now.

I agree with your (2), he often frustrates me. His voice tone and general demeanour look sometimes absent-minded and not strongly convincing. It is possible that it is just an issue of expressivity, but I strongly recommend that he improves on that; step-by-step of course, we don't want to have another pre-programmed and remote-control-directed political leader like Tony Abbott.

About your (3) don't forget that, if Abbott could win an election, so it can Shorten, I can guarantee that. In fact, so it can almost anyone! The opinion polls have been telling a very interesting story for some time now.

custard:

The 2010 election result meant a government with a landslide (in 2007) almost got booted out by supposedly the unelectable Tony Abbott.

To suggest that the result ( in 2013) was a rebuke of Gillard/Abbott and not Rudd/Gillard/Rudd is just an attempt at re-writing history.

When Rudd toppled Gillard in 2013 I for one could not believe just how bad Rudd was and it was like a nightmare returning.

What will happen in 2014 is Bill Shorten will have to walk the wasteland ahead of him that is full of landmines planted by the Coalition. He will step on every single one of them with the Union RC being a big game changer.

I will agree on your point that Shorten wont last till 2016. Not a chance. The big mistake being made from those of the left is their repeated failure of underestimating Tony Abbott.

MJLC:

* The 2010 election result meant a government with a landslide (in 2007) almost got booted out by supposedly the unelectable Tony Abbott.

You might want to re-visit your thoughts about the 1998 Election if that's your line of thinking. In 2010 Australians had a government who had turfed out their PM, was being white-anted from within, ran an absolutely hopeless campaign, and the voting public still couldn't choose Abbott. The man should have walked 2010, but he didn't.

* To suggest that the result (in 2013) was a rebuke of Gillard/Abbott and not Rudd/Gillard/Rudd is just an attempt at re-writing history.

Actually it's an attempt to predict the future.

* When Rudd toppled Gillard in 2013 I for one could not believe just how bad Rudd was and it was like a nightmare returning.

Seeing as you had already locked in your vote, what you thought about it didn't (and doesn't) matter a damn. Those who hadn't decided the issue.

* What will happen in 2014 is Bill Shorten will have to walk the wasteland ahead of him that is full of landmines planted by the Coalition. He will step on every single one of them with the Union RC being a big game changer.

Your belief in boats, Royal Commissions, etc being supremely important in 2016 has already been noted. Repeatedly. I don't share the same level of certainty.

* I will agree on your point that Shorten won't last 'til 2016. Not a chance. The big mistake being made from those of the left is their repeated failure of underestimating Tony Abbott.

The big mistake being made by the Abbott Support League is not understanding Australians are over him.

* The opinion polls in WA have a "5" in front of them for the Libs.

We have a chance to discuss actual WA voting patterns after next Saturday. Relying on that gibberish in today's Australian to have a conversation isn't worth the effort.

Waterloo Sunset 2014:

31 Mar 2014 9:58:03pm

I'll help youse all out here. Shorten's place will be taken by Albo, or Burke (despite Burke's crassness recently toward Bishop); the electorate will be divided until Malcolm steps in for 12 years..Malcolm is only 59 years old.

There, that was easy wasn't it.

The ALP will find a way around Rudd's legacy. We know that they will even stab each other to death, or align with the likes of Oakshott and/or the lugubrious goon Windsor, to reign.

custard:

Yes we will have to both wait and see the outcome from Saturday to see who has a better gauge on the sentiment (or is flukey enough to get it right.)

1. The suggestion that he could have walked in, in 2010 goes against political history, but does show how formidable he was.

2. Predictions are always difficult.

3. Shorten has failed so far to disown himself of the past (something he should do) so history repeating itself is likely.

4. I think on this point you have underestimated the situation. Almost every political pundit said before the election that he can't stop the boats or couldn't turn them around. He did and he has. Its a very powerful message like it or not.

On the Royal Commission, Paul Sheehan probably summed it up on the Drum TV program on Friday last, when he suggested that Gillard was going to go down in the RC, down. I can't believe the ABC didn't hit the dump button there and then. But he is right. The damage this will do to the ALP brand will be massive.

5. After just 6 months the suggestion that the average OZ is over this bloke is just wishful thinking.

sir grumpalot:

31 Mar 2014 12:33:10pm

If I were Abbott I wouldn't have reintroduced knight/damehoods. Instead, I would have introduced the Order of the Bloody Legend, with recipients being called (obviously) Bloody Legends or BLs, eg. Fred Smith BL.

Natasha:

31 Mar 2014 12:47:14pm

I can't understand that why people keep making big fuss on a harmless issue of knights and dames for no end.

Sure, Tony Abbott has made a prime minister's self indulgence. But it is such a minor issue which only affect 4 people a year maximumly. These 4 people would have the choice to decline the titles if they wish.

For those people who are so progressive, you should reject all other imperial titles such as QC, honorable, Victorian cross etc, or reject the Queens birthday public holiday.

MDG:

31 Mar 2014 7:11:21pm

As a matter of fact, some of the states have already dropped the title "QC" and replaced it with "SC" for "Senior Counsel" (though I think there has been some backsliding recently in some Coalition-governed states), the Australian Victoria Cross is now totally separate from the British Victoria Cross, I would be more than happy to change the Queen's Birthday holiday (which isn't even held on her birthday, by the way) and I fully support the idea of withholding the title of "honourable" from politicians until such time as they earn it. What's your point?

Chrism:

31 Mar 2014 12:53:21pm

There is a lot of wilful misrepresentation going on about the reintroduction of knighthoods and this article reflects it.

The new knighthoods are not British awards, they are a part of the Australian award system and are as Australian as AOs and ACs. To claim these are British awards is as ridiculous as claiming the Australia's parliament is British, that the Australian Prime Minister holds a British position and the Australian Navy is a British institution.

These institutions derive from British culture and law but are fully Australianised and are completely compatible with Australia becoming a republic. That is just as true for knighthoods. Knighthoods are a form of honour common in other countries including republics such as France and Italy.

As to freedom of speech, I do not know what an accurate poll would find, but Australians are a fair minded people and it wouldn't surprise me that the great majority believe abusing people on the basis of race is very wrong.

On the other hand people prize their freedom and they assume they are free to give their opinion on any matter, no matter how ill informed it is. That is how they act too. They would be shocked if they knew that they were regularly breaking the law as it currently stands, and that no, they are not free to express their opinion on matters that relate to race, such as immigration, Islam or 'positive' discrimination unless they say it in an approved manner and also get their facts right. Even then they could still be hauled in front of a tribunal just because someone heard them discussing polygamy in a pub.

The law is, of course, is only very selectively applied, which of itself makes it a very bad law, but if it were fully enforced the outrage at it would lift the roof of Parliament House, flag pole and all.

meadwaygirl:

31 Mar 2014 12:58:14pm

New Zealand has Knighthoods and no-one seems to complain. Oh they complained alright, and cringed, and laughed especially when it was back dated to include those who had missed out since the time when these ridiculous titles were discontinued.

Todd:

31 Mar 2014 1:11:37pm

I am able to talk about abortion - guess what? That is offensive to many God botherers. Should it therefore not be allowed? The MUA are allowed to talk of 20% pay increases for ferry operators that already get $220k pa. I find that offensive in the extreme. Should that be allowed in public discourse? I oppose prohibition. Many, many people find that offensive. Should I have my tongue removed?The big difference with just those issues that may cause offence is that they are real. People who think differently about those with different coloured skin should not even be an issue. The colour of someone's skin is entirely irrelevant to me (hence I oppose any reference to race). This also precludes affirmative action or any race specific scholarships etc, etc. I support peoples? right to dribble about any topic (even Bernardi on abortion even though when I hear his thoughts on that topic I almost dry reach). Even those that are based on half-truths and lies. What I find unbelievable about the Left's angle on the Bolt case is that they say if it is offensive and based on errors in fact, it should be punishable under the Law. Well, what do we do with religion then? Any belief in "Gods" is at best not provable and at worst an outright lie. Also, even if I am wrong as an atheist, then the vast majority of religions are wrong. If Islam is right, then the rest are wrong and so on. But I still support their right to be ignorant ? who I am to force the idea of Evolution on someone who disagrees ? and look at the evidence dismissing Creation from even being possible, let alone probable.Unlike, the brown uniform wearing little comrade that Hawker would have you believe is the average Australian, I passionately believe in Individualism. It is very important to me. I vote for the Liberal Democrats first (but know they will never form Government, so I put the Libs second) and I think it is great that Abbott and Brandis took a libertarian stance on this issue. I am an extreme individualist and sorry Bruce, I do not want to be a member of your collective. As you can see, a lot of what I believe does not match exactly what you believe. Derrr. That is why I support you living how you want to live and, please, let me live how I want to live. The way you would like to shut down speech you disagree with is sickening. You say knights and dames is retrograde. What would be a return to the Dark Ages?When it comes to ideas and the expression thereof, any collectivism through force of Law is dangerous to our way of life despite the fact the Left would love everyone to sing the same song. Separation of Church and State needs to be extended to include separation of morality and State.

Alphamikefoxtrot:

t:

There is strong support for what Liberals are doing - that is why they were elected. The new law will still have protections against descrimination - it will just be worded differently.

The law should be written by experienced people from the legal community (e.g. attorney general). A survey of the community to seek opinions from people who have never even read the law, studied law, or set foot inside a court room has no value - it just results in people trying to push through uninformed opinions.

MDG:

31 Mar 2014 9:25:39pm

The new law has no effective protections against discrimination. First, it redefines what "discrimination" even means. Second, the exemptions the Attorney-General has proposed are so wide-ranging that you could probably put on a white-hooded robe and distribute copies of the Volkischer Beobachter outside a synagogue and get away with it.

While public commentary may be of limited value, getting input from key community groups is important - such groups often have significant legal experience in fighting on behalf of their memberships.

ScottBE:

31 Mar 2014 1:43:04pm

A very astute piece Bruce... well said.

While I accept that Mssrs Abbott & Co. are influenced by Tea Party politics, perhaps this is his very ideology, I consider that Mr Abbott is merely living the dream. Hence much of his decisions are founded on little more than (re-)establishing an arch-conservative, royalist view with totally carte blanche economic principles of a free-for-all or melee.

Mr Abbott's background is considerably influenced by his mentor, John Howard who is every bit a Menzies fan. Hence his royalist sentiments. But there is little democracy here. His lack of consultation over what he may consider something that he reckons every Liberal "should" support is indicative of his being out-of-touch, or should we say lack of awareness or respect for others and points of view which don't neatly coincide with his own.

This seems to be the crux of the problem. He has his own agenda and to hell with what others think. He considers that he has a mandate and therefore thinks that the majority of Australians will support whatever he says or does. There is little thought for the next election possibly because he has seen how Mr Howard was able to lie and achieve election after election in the face of moral and ethical outrage.

Yes Bruce, the cat is wild and rampant in the chook yard and doing terrible damage to Australian society just as Howard did. But does he have the finesse and acumen to maintain his popular support? The poll on the Drum front page is some indication that he can't. Only those who cannot abide a well-regulated and peaceful society could support this disregard for ethical values.

jackAlison:

31 Mar 2014 1:44:15pm

Naturally, there will be the ubiqitous comments from liberal netizens about a typical left wing agenda. But what is left wing or indeed right wing about human rights? We are so lucky that by an act of parlaiment back in the 80's we banned David Irving from spreading his revisionist nazi filth in this country. Today, Im not so sure a united front against bigotry would occur.

Big Ben:

31 Mar 2014 1:45:27pm

Thanks Bruce good work

Ostensibly, Abbott and the rest of the far right of the Liberal Party have done no wrong. All of his failed policies are Labor's fault. Even the many that have nothing to do with Labor are still Labor's fault. AS soon as Liberal polling comes back with a big negative it was Labors' fault. And the Speaker allows no argument to the contrary.

Australia will wake up soon because while we give most a fair go we don't enjoy having the p#%$ taken out of us.

Jazzy:

31 Mar 2014 1:50:31pm

"The collective good is subordinated to private, individual and corporate interests". Bruce, I think that you could leave private and individual from that sentence and it would be much closer to the truth. Corporate interest in slowly taking over individual interest. We can only hope that laws which enshrine the corporation over the individual or state are able to be repealed without financial consequence for the state. Although the ISDS clauses that parties want in the TPP would see that this never happens.

Gone to the races:

31 Mar 2014 2:16:18pm

Bruce you say that "we will see less of Tony the conservative and much more of Abbott the libertarian." Abbott is a Catholic old boy to his bootstraps who once fancied himself as a priest. How does libertarian doctrine align in any way with Catholic doctrine and dogma? Surely they are incompatible? All that freedom verses all those restrictions.

MDG:

31 Mar 2014 9:21:02pm

I agree. "Abbott the Libertarian" doesn't exist. A libertarian believes in a hands-off, minimalist government that provides no more than essential services and a framework of laws. Abbott, I think, sees government as an interventionist force, a vehicle through which society can be reshaped and guided. In that respect, he's not so different from many on the political left- he just wants to go in a different direction.

Aja:

31 Mar 2014 2:25:44pm

Tony Abbott most certainly marches to a different drummer than most of Australia does, hence his desire to bring back British honors again. Australia has moved on from that thinking and we have our own honors now. Bringing back the British honors just smacks the faces of those Australians who have been given Australia's highest award and relegates them to second place.

Alexander Downer is going to London to ponce around and be someone important again, hopefully he will not be there for too many years. No matter what experience he has had in the Parliament I have always believed there was a niavety about him and his thinking was somewhat juvenile at times.

As for the legislation regarding bigotry, what a lot of old cobblers that is. Most people recognise bigots for who they are, what they say and their attitudes and the same goes for racism. Both things are abhorrent in the extreme and who needs to legislate to tell us how to identify them???

Come on Tony, for heavens sake get real and start running Australia for a change. I for one am sick of your "diversionary tactics" when bigger things are happening in the background. If you think we cannot see that, then think again!

BJA:

31 Mar 2014 2:28:37pm

Mr Abbott is a self proclaimed monarchist.

It may well be sensible to employ yourself on attempting to understand the fundamental deficiencies in any education system or up-bringing which could result in an adult human being who believes that it is reasonable to breed a head of state, but I can't imagine anything more fruitless than endlessly dissecting this inadequate human being as far as their abilities to be a sensible Prime Minister of Australia go.

Tom Paine pointed out un the latter part of the 18th C that you might as well try to breed a poet laureate as breed a head of state.

A monarchist is a person who understands precisely nothing of animal genetics or evolution and therefore of human genetics and evolution.

As a consequence they understand precisely nothing of the inherited basis of human ethics, nor of the occurrence in a Normal Distribution in a human population of such things as our inherited social natures.

No rational coherent thoughts on human society or government can sensibly be expected from such a person.

Without a factual basis on which to base their thoughts, all that can be expected from the likes of Abbott are an incoherent assemblage of ideas based on primitive urges, bigotries and biases.

Uncontrolled megalomania, primitive self serving cunning, an appeal to the most primitive greeds of the populace - that is what you can expect from such a person, and it's what you are getting and will get.

There will be "no surprises". Surprises come from people who learn new facts and have new thoughts based on them.

Reinhard:

31 Mar 2014 2:29:16pm

This PM and govt are proving more with each passing day just how much of an anachronism they are. Brandis has told us that it's ok to be a bigot and now Abbott wants us all to aspire to be knights and dames in his bizarre little fiefdom.These may be ideals that appeal to vocal minority of right-whinge monarchists & religious zealots, but not to the other 99% of us who believe that progress is good for our society.

GrumpiSkeptic:

Anyone who whinge about the Abbott government is an old fashion, stagnant, backward looking one, is plain wrong and being unfair!

Old fashion? What is wrong with that? I would like to enrich the minds of our dear readers with a suitable example...A Model T Ford.

First of all, a good 1909 Model T Ford worths a hell of a lot of money. To start it, you do need a pair of strong arms to crank-start it. If the car do backfire, the crank will swing back and break your arms. Full attention must be paid NOT to hang on to the crank for too long as you may get a nasty smack. So it definitely has lots of characters.

Once started, it will cruise along in a neck-breaking speed of 40?45 mph. Yes, Imperial standards, of course.

Rich persons with a sense of history can buy one, and you can even specify the colour of your choice...In various shades of black. I wonder if a blue tie goes OK with it?

One of the most unusual functional defects is that it can't deal with steep hills when the fuel level is low because it depends on gravity feed. The way the tank was mounted, the car will starve of fuel facing uphil. So what do you do? You "REVERSE" uphill!

Can you see a parallel there between the "ADULTS" government and the Model T Ford?

Re-introducing Knights and Dames is a good way to reminds us that OLD is NEW again. In one of those awful dodgy adverts which hasn't much to offer in terms of creativity, excitement, or even the product itself. What did it do to attract out attentions? It sings. Yes, bloody terrible jingo, and huge sound bytes to boost.

George Brandis seems to want to be seen as doing something in his new job. So he sets out to appeal a law which attempts to introduce some common sense in our society. Someone accused him of stooping, or even rewarding Andrew Bolt. But George is not that low, is he ?

Benice:

31 Mar 2014 3:18:00pm

The major problem with libertarianism - and we have a test case for it called the United States - is that it assumes that, left to its own devices, society and the economy will tend towards a kind of utopia. It shares this utopian assumption with pure socialism, where the government brings about the ideal society.

However if you play either of these out in reality, utopia is nowhere near what you get. This is why, despite following different paths there the US and many socialist countries find themselves in a state of dystopia.

It's also why sensible modern governments seek a balance of policies not based on one extreme or the other of these theoretical political ideologies but striking a balance which takes into account social and economic realities.

This is why it's worrying when in the US and, to an extent, Australia, you get tea party neo-cons talking about small government, low taxes, free trade with almost religious fervour. It is only the wealthy elite who have nothing to lose from libertarianism, in the same way as they have everything to lose from radical wealth redistribution and nationalisation of industry.

We should be past basing government policy on such black and white philosophies and make policy based on social and economic realities, eg. don't sign free trade agreements which might compromise our working or living standards but DO have a flexible and responsive approach to trade protections. Don't blindly race to being a low-taxing economy but do ensure the middle, particularly small business, aren't overbudened tax-wise by making taxation systems more progressive rather than flat.

It's not a black and white world and a mix of appropriate policies rather than a rabid ideology is what we need from government.

MDG:

31 Mar 2014 8:57:57pm

The ALP is leading in the polls at a time when most Oppositions are still picking up the pieces from their shattering defeat. It's doing fine. Shorten might not be the Messiah, but the last time Labor went looking for one of those it ended up with Kevin Rudd and we all know how that experiment ended.

Steve_C:

"Shorten might not be the Messiah, but the last time Labor went looking for one of those it ended up with Kevin Rudd and we all know how that experiment ended."

Just in case you missed it... the New Testament documents what happened to the supposed "true" Messiah.

So if that's how you see the ALP's experiment with Kevin; I guess you could say it's nothing more than corroborating evidence that the end for Messiah's is pretty much 'set in stone' from the instant they're identified!

It'd be enough to make any person with half a brain steer clear the instant they're heralded as "our Messiah!!" - but clearly; given how many step in to take up the cudgel, there's plenty of brain dead turkeys out there without a single clue of just how this stuff works. Either that or they really do think they're the Messiah!!! Yikes!!!!

Helen Killen:

31 Mar 2014 3:42:23pm

Wow Hawker has studied classical political philosophy??? Oh really! If he had he would understand that the philosophy behind small "l" libertarianism as proposed by John Stuart Mill in his essay " On Liberty" is the opposite of the "dog eat dog" description of the Liberal Party he has come up with. George Brandis is in fact a proponent of this philosophy which states that everyone should be brought up to the " starting line of realising their potential as human being". Small "l" liberalism is therefore about providing citizens with the means to do that via the state provision of Education, access to medical services, non repression by class etc. in this way the citizen carries no disadvantage so it is then up to them to use their skill, brain power and hard work to achieve the goals they have set for themselves.

Alpo:

31 Mar 2014 6:45:06pm

""l" libertarianism as proposed by John Stuart Mill"... Mill was not a libertarian, he was a liberal.I fully agree with you about pointing to the existence of small-l liberals. But please do tell me: Where are they hiding now? I am afraid that at the moment it is the Neoliberal Taliban who are in charge!

MDG:

Peter Graham:

31 Mar 2014 3:42:55pm

Mr Hawker! Is the collective good bettered by increasing the workforce? Labor decreased it.Is it bettered by Union leaders going to jail for ripping off their workforce? Shorten, and I presume you, supported those who did that.Is it bettered by a Union leader calling for civil disobedience, while his supporters, Shorten included, knock back the bills that may very well save Qantas? I presume you support them again.Is it bettered by the CFMEU having to pay more than a million dollars of their workers money in fines? I presume you support that also.Last question. Why do you not put at the end of your article that you are a failed Labor party adviser?You are certainly are not a believer in telling the truth. As you well know Labor too could not have saved Holden, as they didn't save Mitsubishi or Ford. Nor could they have saved Qantas, by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars to support them.

Peter R:

31 Mar 2014 4:03:37pm

When Abbott and his band of wild-eyed crazies and Young Liberals won the election, I thought it would be interesting to see if they'd change tack and govern in a pragmatic sensible way or start enacting their extremist opposition rants.

The former could see them in power for two or three elections, the latter consign them to history in one by over reaching and alienating too many people too fast.

Given their actions so far they're hell bent on ram-raiding the shop for their mates and escaping back to the comfort and lack of responsibility on the opposition benches ASAP.

v:

"They also demonstrate an internal tension in his Government between regular old conservatism and a more radical emergent libertarian ideology."

You speak as though this is something new. In fact, it is a phenomenon that can trace its roots back to the early days of the Colony of New South Wales.

I have spoken before about the historical struggle between proponents of Australian independence and the "Sahibs" who seek to enrich themselves by serving a foreign master at the expense of Australian sovereignty. But there is an equally persistent division within the ranks of the colonialists, between those who simply pine for an aristocratic past and believe in concepts like "noblesse oblige", and those who are into fast bucks and don't give a stuff about anyone.

Now, these are two diametrically opposed mindsets. The only thing that binds them into a single political entity is their fear of Australian independence and their low opinion of the Australian people. As the Labor Party has, for over a hundred years, been actively promoting Australian independence and a just and prosperous society, it is only natural that these two sad groups would attempt to combine in mutual opposition to Australian independence and fear of social progress.

Robert Menzies said it all in his inaugral address as leader of the Liberal Party, when he described it as a "coalition of anti-Labor forces in Australian politics".

The Liberal Party is almost unique in modern politics in that it proposes no vision for the future and has no consistent ideological base. It defines itself, not by what it is, but by what it isn't; and its policies are directed to reverse social progress made by previous Labor governments rather than to build an alternative model of future society.

The TEA Party influence is definitely getting stronger, but this is to be expected now that both the Liberal Party and TEA Party are a part of the same corporate empire.

uglytruth:

31 Mar 2014 6:02:29pm

Australian's don't respect free speech because we haven't had the history of the US, we generally don't have any rights as Australians. Not for free speech, nor a fair trial. We have the privilege. Its an important distinction but just because Australian's are naive and ignorant, doesn't make it good. Just because Australian's don't understand or appreciate real, just, LIBERTY and FREEDOM doesn't make it wise. It's ironic that articles like this, and the predictable left/right wing attacks at each others OPINION, do more to make us like the US, than any rational debate could.

v:

"Australian's don't respect free speech because we haven't had the history of the US, we generally don't have any rights as Australians."

Yes, we are not really a nation as yet.

One of the things you need to do to become a nation is to make some sort of act of national determination. The US did it when they rose up and kicked out the British and, even more importantly, set out the fundamental principles and ideas upon which the new state was to be built. The French did it when they overthrew their feudal monarchy. Even New Zealand has done it, to some extent, with the Treaty of Waithangi. But Australia is an artificial country (not yet a nation) established by the British empire in its own image. Our two "national days" both celebrate shameful events - the first when Cook's crime was concretised by the establishment of a bridgehead for invasion in Sydney Cove; and the second when our brave soldiers were used as cannon fodder in an unjustifiable attack on a country with whom no Australian had any beef at all.

Before we can have a proper national day of which ALL Australians can feel proud, we need to have done something special to define ourselves as a nation. I suggest that we develop our own Bill of Rights, negotiate treaties with the indigenous nations who own the land, prepare to sever the ties with the English monarchy and pick a single day on which we can promulgate the Bill of Rights, sign the treaties and declare ourselves a Republic.

The US and the French fought for real nationhood. We meekly accepted a shoddy parody of nationhood that ensures that our natural resources are controlled by foreign corporations and our sovereignty remains subject to "Her Majesty's Pleasure". We need to stand up and call ourselves a nation.....and mean it.

Loo Philosopher :

RichardJ:

31 Mar 2014 6:53:04pm

Bruce, you are in my opinion completely correct. Almost all of the actual policy positions the LNP takes are straight out of the US Tea Party playbook: right wing nuttiness founded on the idea that small government is good , provided it advantages the wealthy. And they hate nothing more than universal health care.

Oh, hang on, that's under attack here too. Apparently you can't increase the tax take either - that's too hard on the well off.

And for you right wing ninnies out there: I'm well off. Don't bother casting aspersions.

ElijahThomas:

31 Mar 2014 7:10:16pm

Knighthoods and Damehoods are a part of this country's european heritage, like Parliament, which ought to be celebrated alongside the many other valuable traditions and cultures that have contributed to our national fabric.

Labor and the Greens will cry foul, but the truth is that, by the decision of the Australian people at referendum, the Commonwealth of Australia remains a constitutional monarchy. Folding that constitutional fact and our rich heritage into our institutions is not an imposition and does not make them any less Australian. It shows, like 'welcome to country' ceremonies and the many popular holidays celebrated from countless cultures, that Australia has a rich and wondrous heritage to draw upon in defining itself.

v:

01 Apr 2014 11:44:45am

DIS,

There is nothing in 18C that restricts the right of Australians to say things which may offend some Australians.

You see, there is a difference between saying something that may be considered offensive, but which is an honest expression of your opinion, and saying something with the deliberate intention of insulting someone BECAUSE THEY ARE OF A DIFFERENT RACE.

Everybody has the right to be boorish, and to tell the truth as they see it. But, if you wish to use your privileged position as a columnist (Bolt is NOT a journalist) or commentator to attack a group of people because they are of a certain race or religion, you cannot expect to hide behind "free speech".

Firstly, Bolt's slander of prominent and worthy Australians was not a "free expression" of Bolts opinion - he was paid to write the article.

Secondly, Bolt exercised his right to free speech in a socially destructive manner. I hold a divers license and therefore have a "right" to drive my car, provided that I obey the road rules, only drive on declared roads and avoid driving at high speed through shopping malls.

My only objection to what happened to Andrew Bolt is that Bolt is just the dupe. He is one of the few people dumb enough to carry out Rupert's dirty work without realising how he is being used and how badly his behaviour will be seen through the lens of history. News Limited was the real criminal and it should have been Rupert in the dock. Bolt is just a pawn, and a dim one at that.

Serendipitous:

31 Mar 2014 8:26:04pm

Thanks Bruce.I think the opening sentences of your final para nicely sums up the real risk to Australia. My fear is that the Australia we know and treasure is like a frog in water over a low flame, slowly and unknowingly, but surely and steadily being killed!

foundthetruth:

31 Mar 2014 10:06:33pm

The coalition is on the right track with this one. My guess is that article 18C of the racial discrimination act could be the start of an eventual bill of rights and that is the last thing we want! To legislate in order to improve human behaviour will never work. What will work is sending our children back to Sunday school so they can again be taught one of the greatest commandments Jesus gave us: You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

v:

" What will work is sending our children back to Sunday school so they can again be taught one of the greatest commandments Jesus gave us: You shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Sorry, I would have replied earlier, but I had to stop laughing before I could type.

You see, I used to teach Sunday School and honestly believed the nonsense that we spewed into innocent young heads. But there was one thing that troubled me, and it relates to the "commandment" of which you speak.

I was fascinated by a hypothetical situation in which two departed souls were awaiting "triage" before beign assigned to Hell or Heaven. If you were the soul of someone who had lived a virtuous life and deserved to go to heaven, and were approached by the other, a sinner, and asked to swap places so that you go to hell and the sinner goes to heaven, what is the "Christian" thing to do? Should you turn your back on the chance of eternal salvation and, in so doing, reject your own God, or should you "treat your neighbour as yourself" and give your place in heaven to the sinner?

At age 13, I was not really clever enough to figure this one out for myself, so I asked the superintendent of our Sunday School. He reacted furiously and banned me from teaching Sunday School. I appealed to the Minister, who was even more incensed by my question.

Looking back from the perspective of middle-age, I am amazed and horrified that someone with my limited understanding of ethics and morality was placed in charge of the ethical instruction of young minds. But I believe that I was probably better qualified than either the superintendent or the minister, neither of whom had a clue.

If churches were prepared to invest the considerable sums required to pay professional teachers, and offered non-sectarian instruction in the discipline of ethics, I suggest that they may have some role in the education of young minds. But I am afraid that the whole idea of letting young minds come under the influence of untrained, ill-informed zealots (like me at age 13) horrifies me.

If you want your kids to grow up as well-adjusted, ethically sound individuals, SET AN EXAMPLE OF ADULT BEHAVIOUR - don't try to contract out your parenting responsibilities to untrained strangers.

foundthetruth:

01 Apr 2014 1:59:52pm

V,Your hypothetical situation is indeed an interesting one. In many respects Jesus did just that, He gave up His place in heaven, came to earth and took upon Himself the sins of not just one sinner but all of us sinners when He died on the cross. The main difference is that He did not reject God the Father, He obeyed Him. The Church has failed in many respects but not Jesus who is the Head of the Church, He is the way and the truth and the life and the only One who can help us to be truly reconciled.

Billbo7753:

01 Apr 2014 8:21:39am

Good to see the thoughts of Dame Ayn Rand running through the farrago of posts that claim to support crazy. The excesses of Libertarianism has now been rejected by mainstream America seeing the Tea Party as the hirelings of the Koch Brothers and the Walton Family. All I am seeing is a group of benighted folks screaming the mantra that: "Gina needs more billions!" Oh sorry, too stupid to see that this is masked in the comments of "best government ever" ... the poor should pay while Gina should never pay aka "no mining tax" and "$6 co-payment". These are nothing more than the Libertarian road to nirvana that is Somalia, a land where there are no taxes and no government of any description. Yay for the foresight of these LNP libertarians advocating for a new Somalia in Australia for that is the logical conclusion of these flawed policies.

Malcolm:

Trekka:

01 Apr 2014 12:12:48pm

Its interesting, the AbbottAbbottAbbott attacks did not work in the election campaign but the ABC is determined prosecute this tactic even if it means its own destruction in its rabid defense of left wing "progressivism".

M.S:

01 Apr 2014 1:25:05pm

He was out of touch the last two elections, I never met too many traditional Lib supporters who could really throw their arms up in the air and say that this was a leader for our times. This will not affect his chances in the future unless the circumstances change, no matter what the Left can throw in his way.

A majority still support other decisions from the Government with refugee policy (thanks to the good fortunes of the aftermath of the PNG solution, their own equally extreme response and a monsoon season), their divided response to the Grain Corp decision (which is popular, whether they like it or not) and probably the continued narrative of battling the debt and changing the Australian economy for the best. The Carbon and Mining taxes will either be a source of triumph for them next election or largely forgotten by the public as an issue, depending on an insane Senate make-up.

My advice to the Left, fight smarter instead of harder and prepare for the worse election time.